Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Tied Cottages

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having concerning the tenure of service cottages in the agricultural industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): There has been a series of discussions at Ministerial and official level following publication by my right hon. Friends last August of the consultative document and these discussions will continue as necessary for purposes of preparing the related legislation.

Mr. Renton: After all his consultations does the Minister now accept that in farming, especially dairy farming, certain houses have to be tied to certain jobs? To relieve the fear of homeless-ness, will he consider a system of licensing essential agricultural service homes, in co-operation with the responsible local authority, to provide replacement housing on job loss or retirement?

Mr. Strang: If the hon Gentleman has read our consultative document, he will recognise that we accept that there are circumstances in which it is right and appropriate that farm workers should live either on or in the vicinity of the farm where they work. I have made it absolutely clear that "abolition" does not mean "demolition".

Miss Maynard: Does my hon. Friend agree that no one's home should depend on his job and that security of tenure is as important to farm workers as it is to tenant farmers and their nearest relative?

Mr. Strang: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that the latest report, which was sponsored by the Milk Marketing Board—I do not agree with all its contents—brought out the fundamental feature of the system—namely, the insecurity and the fear of the threat of eviction which particularly affects older workers.

Mr. Cormack: Is not the Minister aware that there are many agricultural workers, including members of the union, who believe that tied cottages should remain? Will he have proper consultations with an open mind and not merely bow to the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard)?

Mr. Strang: I have met many farm workers, but I have yet to meet one who is opposed to what the Government intend to achieve in this respect. However, I am conscious that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation, not all of it deliberate, in the Press in connection with this matter and that it has led a number of farm workers to believe that "abolition" means "demolition."

Potatoes

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the present level of potato prices.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the supply of potatoes.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): On the potato situation in general, I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 26th January, to the statement made during the debate on the Adjournment on 28th January, and to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 16th February. The average United Kingdom producer price in the week ending 21st February was about £183 per ton and retail prices are currently in a range of 9½p-14p per lb.—[Vol. 904, c. 29–31; Vol. 905, c. 490.]

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that housewives and greengrocer retailers, angered by the price increases, have now been further incensed because mouldy, substandard potatoes have been mixed with potatoes for human consumption? This is a disgraceful form of cheating. How does my hon. Friend intend to remedy the situation, to stop the cheating and to prevent its recurrence? How does

he intend to bring down the price of potatoes?

Mr. Bishop: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this matter and I have been in contact with him about it. However, I do not believe that the complaint is general. The problem may be centered in some areas. The remedy for those affected would be through the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Pym: Will the Minister inform his hon. Friend that it is important to ensure that a realistic guaranteed price level is arranged in the Price Review so that the full acreage is taken up and supplies next year are adequate?

Mr. Bishop: I recognise the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. The guaranteed price is a factor that must be taken into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the Review. Nevertheless, there are other factors that influence the acreage actually planted.

Mr. Lamond: Has our membership of the EEC helped or hindered my hon. Friend in dealing with this matter?

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will be aware of our actions and the representations to the Community on this matter. Following application by the United Kingdom, the CCT on new and main-crop potatoes has been suspended until 28th March.

Mr. Michael Latham: For the benefit of his hon. Friends, will the Minister confirm that it is Government policy to take no action on this matter before the Price Review?

Mr. Bishop: I am not sure that the hon. Member's observations need a reply. Although I fully recognise that the potato shortage has caused some problems for many people, nevertheless many of us would do well to reduce our consumption of potatoes. I understand how hon. Members generally want to carry more weight in public affairs, but the potato does not always help to put it in the right place.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made any estimate of the effect which the


international introduction of a 200-mile EEZ will have on the British fishing industry.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The effect must depend in part upon the outcome of the Community reappraisal of the Common Fisheries Policy and upon possible negotiations with third countries.

Mr. Wall: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is essential within the economic zone to provide a 100-mile exclusive zone for the British fishing industry if it is to have a future? What is he doing to prepare now for protection of the 100-mile exclusive and 200-mile international limits?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the industry's views. I shall be seeing the hon. Member and his colleagues in Hull tomorrow. The Government stand by their desire to move to a 200-mile limit. The Community, however, is an important consideration. The document which is before us is being studied carefully.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be welcome in Hull to see the trawlers laid up there and to open the new fish dock. Is it the Government's intention in the negotiations to press for an exclusive economic zone of 100 miles for British fishermen and not just to support the idea of a 200-mile international limit? Is that the Government's negotiating position?

Mr. Peart: No, it is not the Government's position. That is the view put to us by the industry, and I am looking at it carefully. I shall be anxious to protect our fishery interests, but I do not want to be shackled at the beginning of the negotiations.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have the support of all sides of the House if he takes a firm stand on the need for a 100-mile exclusive zone within the EEC policy? Will he tell the Community that he regards this as a fundamental national interest and that in the event of the Community failing to understand that position we shall withdraw from Community institutions until it does?

Mr. Peart: I get a lot of strange advice from certain quarters. I cannot accept

the hon. Member's suggestion. This is a very important United Kingdom issue, not specifically a Scottish nationalist one.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that in this problem as in that of potatoes my right hon. Friend is hampered by British membership of the Common Market? Is it not the case that right across the whole range of foodstuffs we are in difficulties as a result of our membership?

Mr. Peart: No, I cannot accept that. I have tried to tell my hon. Friend in a courteous way that he should not fight old battles which have been lost. Britain is now a member of the Community. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend wants to ask me a question he should stand up to do so.

Mr. Skinner: Some people have changed sides.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I decide who will get up to speak.

Mr. Peart: It is true that some people change sides. It is necessary to face reality, not to live in a dream world. The simple fact is that the Community has not harmed our potato crop—the damage was done by the bad weather.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister bear in mind that in negotiations concerning the 200-mile limit he faces the particularly important and difficult task of safeguarding the position of our inshore fishermen? Is he aware that if the deep-sea vessels withdraw from other waters into inshore waters, and if there is what has sometimes been called "fruitful swapping" of rights with other countries for waters and rights elsewhere, British inshore fishermen may be deprived of their customary fishing grounds?

Mr. Peart: I accept the point made by the hon. Member, who has a tremendous inshore fishing interest in his constituency. I recognise that this sector of the industry is just as important as the distant water fleet. I shall watch the point carefully in the negotiations.

Mr. Pym: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a statement on the progress of negotiations?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I go to Brussels on Monday evening. I hope that we shall


get a decision on the price negotiations that week.

Mr. Pym: What about fisheries?

Mr. Peart: No, I am dealing with the common agricultural policy. I shall have to make a statement to the House because our own Price Review is involved.

Mr. Pym: I was asking about fisheries and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the right hon. Gentleman to ask another question.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think there has been some misunderstanding.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take any points of order at the end of Question Time.

Storm Damage

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now state whether he intends to take any action in response to the request for special assistance from the National Farmers Union to help the growers whose polythene tunnels were severely damaged or destroyed by the gales of 2nd January.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now considered the request made by representatives of the NFU in respect of the storm damage on 2nd January; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strang: It is not our policy to compensate farmers or growers for the effects of extreme weather conditions. However, we have examined the rules of our grant schemes and propose to amend them so as to recognise that the normal practice is to insure buildings for their current value which may not be the same as the cost of replacement. We also take account of the fact that some structures are uninsurable.

Mr. Spicer: I express my gratitude for that reply, particularly the Minister's last remark. Why are the Government more than willing to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into failing American industries yet in difficulty about making even short-term loans to a basically thriving British industry which has suffered a natural disaster—one hopes it was a unique event

—an industry which merely calls for some form of short-term assistance to get it back on its feet again?

Mr. Strang: One of the reasons we support the horticultural industry is its contribution to employment. That, too, is why the Government supported the car industry.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that his Answer today will be welcomed by glasshouse growers in my constituency? Is he satisfied that glasshouse growers face fair competition from their rivals on the Continent?

Mr. Strang: There is a great deal of scope for argument about what constitutes fair competition. However, we make every effort to ensure that the Commission monitors the aids given to other producers. Our producers are not at a disadvantage compared with producers in other member States generally.

Mr. Freud: If the Minister thinks that there is even a lukewarm case for giving help because of damaged polythene tunnels, does he not realise that there is a much stronger case for giving help where glass was destroyed? There was no polythene which could not be saved, but glass which was smashed has gone for ever. Will he now consider whether it is time to talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about giving the industry two or three years—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and this Question deals with polythene.

Mr. Strang: I think I can help the hon. Member. When growers replace glass that has been destroyed in storms, they are entitled to grants. The effect of the small concession I have announced is that the growers will get more grant.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that we agree with him about the employment position in the glass-house industry? Will he represent to the Chancellor that this industry provides excellent opportunities to avoid exporting currency in the short term by helping us not to import more hothouse produce than necessary?

Mr. Strang: I agree that horticulture makes a valuable contribution to saving imports, which is why the Government


support it with capital grants and advisory services.

Dock Work Regulation Bill

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the farming and horticultural industries in relation to the possible effects of the Dock Work Regulation Bill; and what reply he has given thereto.

Mr. Peart: A number of organisations expressed concern about the possible effects. Before the Bill was published I replied that their views were being considered by the Secretary of State for Employment and myself. Afterwards, I referred them, where appropriate, to the provisions requiring the National Dock Labour Board to consult me in regard to food storage.

Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he has not been to the Cabinet to tell the Prime Minister and his cronies that he will not permit the agriculture and horticulture industries to be held to ransom by a group of dockers? Will he tell the Cabinet that he will permit the passage of the Bill only over his dead body?

Mr. Peart: No. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is becoming very extravagant. We had a full day's debate on these matters on Second Read-in. I shall be consulted adequately.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dock workers could take strike action at any time, even at this moment, if they so desired, and could do precisely what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said? Therefore, is not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion absolute nonsense?

Mr. Peart: For once I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety among fruit growers and others who maintain large cold stores within the prescribed mileages of dock towns, and especially in Kent, which is, in effect, a peninsula?

Mr. Peart: I accept that there are anxieties among some hon. Members. However, as I have said, I shall be consulted fully at every stage.

Agricultural Self-Sufficiency

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current extent of agricultural self-sufficiency in Great Britain; and what were the equivalent figures for this time last year.

Mr. Bishop: Home agriculture and fisheries contributed 55 per cent. to the United Kingdom's total food requirements in 1973–74, the latest year for which aggregate figures are available. The contribution in 1972–73 was also about 55 per cent.

Mr. Latham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year we imported £1,850 million worth of food that we could have grown ourselves? Is there not an urgent need to reduce that figure? Is not that objective made much more difficult by provisions such as the capital transfer tax, which is very destructive of agriculture?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should not be unaware that in the past 10 years the amount that we have grown ourselves has increased from 51 per cent. to 55 per cent. The position is that 45 per cent. of the food we import cannot be grown in the United Kingdom for climatic reasons. During the two past years or so when we have been responsible for agriculture, my right hon. Friend has brought forward various packages and changes in the green pound, all of which have helped to add to the confidence of the industry.

Mr. Roderick: Does my hon. Friend agree that we shall have a tremendous slump in the production of poultry unless we seek permanent exemption from EEC Directive 118 on the conditions of slaughter?

Mr. Bishop: These matters are under review by the Ministry in consultation with the Community.

Sir David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the world population is growing much faster than world food supplies and that that looks like being the pattern for many years to come? As a result, we shall not be able to import the same proportion of food. Will the hon. Gentleman and the Government concentrate on expanding home food production?

Mr. Bishop: It is not hard to conceive a population explosion taking place, but the fact remains that in the White Paper we forecast that by the 1980s we shall be saving approximately £500 milion a year on imports. Over a period of years the sort of saving envisaged in the White Paper will be realised because of various steps that my right hon. Friend has taken.

Mr. Spearing: Is not one of the problems of increasing our sugar self-sufficiency that we occasionally have bad weather? If we are to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and live in reality, would it not be a good thing to maintain reasonable quantities of imported cane sugar?

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the White Paper we aim to achieve 50 per cent. sugar self-sufficiency by the 1980s I am aware of the concern of my hon. Friend and others about the sugar situation. The important things is to have security of sugar supplies, and then to have regard to the need to have sugar in the form that we want it—for example, cane sugar for refining in this country. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps in the past year or so to try to satisfy the needs of the consumer and the interests of workers at the same time.

Mr. Crawford: If we add Scottish fish landings to Scottish agricultural produce is not Scotland self-supporting in food?

Mr. Bishop: As Scotland is still a part of the United Kingdom, it still receives the benefits of the policy that the Government have pursued over the past few years.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman now admit that we are in a ridiculous position with agricultural production falling and the balance-of-payments gap widening? Is it not time that long-term confidence was given to British agriculture so that we can achieve greater self-sufficiency?

Mr. Bishop: I wish that the Opposition would not continue to make their gloomy forecasts about the future of agriculture. There is the possibility of a record peacetime harvest of wheat. The pig herd is expanding and there is confidence in the dairy industry. Not so long ago the hon.

Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and his hon. Friends were forecasting the rationing of milk by Christmas 1975.

Agricultural Holdings

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings administered by his Ministry are subject to agricultural tenancy.

Mr. Peart: Three hundred and eighty-eight.

Mr. Monro: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether future policy will mean one law for Government tenancies and another for private sector tenancies and, if so, why?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman was a member of an Administration which favoured the exclusion of statutory smallholdings provided by local authorities and the Ministry. That is something which the hon. Gentleman pursued in Government with his colleagues. I wish to do something about the matter, and yesterday I tabled clauses which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read.

Mr. Jopling: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Press statement about these matters, will he tell us how he justifies putting himself in a better position as a landlord than other landlords?

Mr. Peart: All statutory smallholdings are subject to democratic control. That is the reason.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the legislation which the Opposition have in mind is designed to protect tenants against unscrupulous landowners, who often put out tenancies to auction or to tender so as to extract the maximum possible revenue from their land, landowners who often could not give a hoot about agricultural production?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to discuss these matters when the clauses are discussed in the House. I am rather surprised that people should condemn local authorities, which are statutorily responsible for smallholdings. When I say that there is democratic control, I mean that every councillor must face election.

Sheepmeat

Mr. Gould: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the EEC Commission's proposals for a sheepmeat régime.

Mr. Peart: I have already told the Council of Agriculture Ministers that I cannot accept the Commission's proposals as they now stand. I am not prepared to agree to the introduction of any Community arrangements for sheepmeat which do not safeguard our essential interests, including our third-country supplies.

Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if, in addition to the Common Market duty of 16 per cent. rising to 20 per cent. which we must now place on lamb imports, we were compelled to impose the whole lunatic machinery of the CAP, lamb prices would increase by 50 per cent. and lamb would virtually disappear from the British table? Does my right hon. Friend accept that his reply is extremely welcome? If such a proposal should re-emerge, he would earn the support of the whole House if he were to resist it with great strenuousness.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Community recognises the importance of third countries, such as New Zealand. I have been in close touch with New Zealand Government and I consider that the tariff of 20 per cent. is too high. I have always defended the access by New Zealand supplies, and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Burden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread unrest in this country about the circumstances in which live sheep are sent to the Community? What steps is he taking to expand the meat carcase trade from this country?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has asked me another question. I was dealing with the subject of sheepmeat.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister resist this further encroachment on Britain's food supplies, which is totally unjustified because the Continental EEC countries are not large consumers or producers of lamb?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I have constant meetings with my New Zealand

friends—I stress that I regard them as friends—and I defend their interests in the Community. I believe that in principle their situation has been accepted.

Mr. Sott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that the Community accepts the principle of the entry of New Zealand meat and has withdrawn its proposals on the subject of sheepmeat? Does he also agree that the whole exercise is aimed at obtaining access to the European market for United Kingdom sheepmeat and Irish sheepmeat at reasonable prices and time?

Mr. Peart: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view, which is quite correct. I am anxious that the régime should not harm our interests and I have stated that over and over again.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Whatever sheepmeat regulations are introduced in the near future, will the Minister give an assurance that he will hold on to the present market price system for lamb and will not go into intervention buying?

Mr. Peart: Whenever the question of the sheepmeat régime is debated, I shall, of course, consult all the interests concerned. The House knows that I frequently attend meetings of the Scrutiny Committee and I am quite rightly subjected to questions from colleagues, who undertake the task in a constructive manner. I do not think the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) need worry too much about the matter.

Dutch Elm Disease

Mr. Walters: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts have been made by his Department to seek new outlets for elm timber in face of the glut caused by Dutch elm disease.

Mr. Strang: The Forestry Commission, with the full co-operation of the home and importing timber trades, has set up an Elm Marketing Group, charged with seeking out and promoting markets for elm timber. The Forestry Commission itself has been active in promoting wider use of elm timber.

Mr. Walters: Is the Minister satisfied that he is taking enough action in this respect, particularly in encouraging other Departments to use timber from elm trees


in the home industries, particularly in the construction of motorways? On the subject of the preservation of the countryside, is he satisfied that trees are being replaced rapidly enough?

Mr. Strang: A tremendous level of activity is taking place in this respect and the Forestry Commission has been particularly active. If I may single out one organisation which has increased its consumption of elm, it is the National Coal Board. We do our utmost to encourage replanting and the Department of the Environment does all it can to encourage tree planting.

Mr. Crouch: Can the Minister say how many elm trees have been felled as a result of the disease and how many are likely to be lost as the disease increases?

Mr. Strang: I should like notice of the question about the number of trees felled to date but, whatever the number felled, an even greater number still standing are diseased. This is a serious problem.

Farm Tenancies

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sons succeeded to their fathers' tenancies last year; and what percentage of tenancies created last year this represents.

Mr. Peart: I regret that my Department does not keep this information.

Sir A. Meyer: The Minister's reply is very disappointing. Despite his laudable attempts to ensure some kind of preferential succession of sons of tenant farmers, will he none the less reflect on the awful warning of the Labour Government's attempts to provide for security of housing tenure—attempts which have led to the largest increase in homelessness ever recorded?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study carefully the new provisions tabled by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The House will be given them today. Hon. Members must be patient. The National Farmers Union feels strongly about this matter. Its propaganda in the debate on this subject showed that it was anxious that the Government should do something about the matter, and we are doing so.

Mr. Pym: In view of the extent and substance of the provisions tabled by the Government, has the Minister made representations to the Leader of the House for time to be given to debate those important proposals?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman came to seem me about this matter and we discussed the situation informally. I thought that we had a gentleman's agreement that the best place to discuss the matter would be in Standing Committee.

Mr. Pym: I agree that it is right to debate the matter in Committee, but surely substantial amendments amounting to some eight pages of typescript and dealing with important principles should be debated before the Committee considers them in detail.

Mr. Peart: I recognise that the provisions are most important, but I repeat that I discussed the matter with the right hon. Gentleman and it was agreed that the first discussion should take place in Committee. I did not initially want that to happen, but I felt that the Opposition wanted it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We want to be fair to the House. Perhaps the matter can be raised on another occasion.

Mr. Roderick: Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many tenant farmers, for tabling the new clauses on this important subject? This legislation has long been overdue. Will he resist the temptation to give in to Opposition Members, who totally oppose such legislation?

Mr. Peart: This is now Government policy.

Skim Milk Powder

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of skim milk powder will be imported each year if the incorporation scheme now under review is approved.

Mr. Bishop: Our import requirements would depend on a number of factors and no estimate can be given at the present time.

Mr. Miller: Is the Minister aware that apart from the concern of many poultry


and pig breeders that the use of milk powder may result in an increase in the price of their compound ration of £6 per ton there is a great deal of uncertainty over the properties of this skim milk, some of which went into intervention before June 1973, which may have serious effects on its keeping properties and on production? What investigations have been made into this most serious aspect?

Mr. Bishop: The present stocks in the Community amount to 1·1 million tons. That figure must be reduced urgently. The only practical way of dealing with such a large quantity is by incorporating it in animal feeding stuffs. However, the quantity is relatively small and the direct effect on retail prices should be relatively small.

Mr. Marten: As one who voted against entering into the EEC, may I ask the Minister to explain why the British people have to pay for the dried milk mountain in the Common Market when we had nothing to do with incurring it?

Mr. Bishop: This matter is under review and we agree that various aspects still have to be clarified. On the subject of skim milk, I note the capacity of the hon. Gentleman to make mountains out of mole hills.

Green Pound

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make a further revaluation of the green pound.

Mr. Peart: I am continuing to keep the level of the green pound under review, having regard to the interests of both producers and consumers.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware of the continuing concern in the farming industry about the valuation of the green pound? What is he going to do to bring the value of the green pound into line with the pound sterling?

Mr. Peart: Since October 1974 I have obtained changes from the Community on four occasions. It is not contemplated that there will be any change in the forthcoming price review negotiations.

Mr. Jopling: As the latest figures show a fall in the sheep and cattle herds, with the dairy herd down by 5 per cent. and

the beef herd by 7½ per cent., will the Minister stop this decline by revaluing the green pound?

Mr. Peart: I moved very quickly on this matter, unlike my predecessors, and I am anxious in the negotiations to achieve something which will do more for the beef industry than a revaluation of the green pound—that is, to keep the variable premium system.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Is the Minister aware of the difficulties caused to Northern Ireland agriculture by the different values of the Irish and the sterling green pound? Is he examining the alleged racket of double payment of beef premium on cattle exported to Eire?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member takes an interest in these matters and will know that I recognise the importance of the Northern Ireland industry and its contribution to United Kingdom agricultural production: I cannot say when there will be a further change in the value of the green pound, but I will watch the matter carefully and I recognise that it could have a serious effect on Northern Ireland's trade.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Peart: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 903, c. 581.]

Mr. Canavan: When my right hon. Friend next meets the NFU, will he discuss the effects of the common agricultural policy? Does he remember that the re-negotiation of the terms of Britain's membership of the Common Market included references to benefits for farmers and consumers? Can he tell us now where these benefits are? Can he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for now.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must be aware that I am continually in close contact with farmers' leaders in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. We meet frequently on matters affecting the Community.

Butter and Cheese

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are to be made for the supply of New Zealand butter and cheese to the United Kingdom consumer after 1977.

Mr. Peart: The detailed arrangements for implementing the European Council's decision of 10th March 1975 are under consideration in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in The Times of 5th February that the European Community is in no hurry to honour the commitment on New Zealand dairy products entered into in the re-negotiations? Can he assure us that he will resist any effort to dishonour this commitment?

Mr. Peart: I hope my right hon. Friend will not always take for granted what appears in the newspapers, much as I respect The Times—it is a very fine newspaper. We are having negotiations next week and my right hon. Friend need not worry too much.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: If my right hon. Friend were one of the New Zealand Ministers, would he be satisfied with the rate at which negotiations are proceeding?

Mr. Peart: The New Zealand Ministers are well pleased with the progress that we have made in their interests. I am always in close contact with them.

Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the subsidy of 11p a pound on butter, there has been a considerable increase in butter imports rather than a benefit to the British butter producers? Has this subsidy benefited the New Zealand butter producers?

Mr. Peart: New Zealand has had a traditional trade with us in butter and dairy products and that should be maintained. As I said earlier, New Zealand is naturally anxious about tariff arrangements, but we are anxious to protect our traditional suppliers of food, of which New Zealand is one.

PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister when he expects to make his next Ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) on 25th November, Sir.

Mr. Rost: As an all-party Select Committee has today unanimously condemned the Government for the folly of their defence cuts, which are a threat to our security, and as Moscow is doing a marvellous public relations job to promote the Leader of the Opposition as the wicked witch of the western world because she has the courage to warn the nation of the dangers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Prime Minister's Question Time. Half the House wants to get in.

Mr. Rost: As my right hon. Friend has warned the nation of the dangers of appeasement and disarmament, when is the Prime Minister going to tell the nation where he stands?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that when the hon. Gentleman put down his Question two weeks ago he had information about what might appear in yesterday's Select Committee Report, which will be studied very seriously by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. There is no ministerial responsibility here for what is said in Moscow. Moscow made a typically humourless reaction to the discovery that the Leader of the Opposition has now discovered that the Berlin wall was built 15 years ago. In regard to defence policy. I notice that in the right hon. Lady's "Panorama" broadcast—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It was damned good—far better than the Prime Minister's.

The Prime Minister: It was very good. The right hon. Lady said that she was not querying 94 per cent. of the defence cuts, but only the last 6 per cent. That will not be enough to tear down the Berlin wall.

Mr. Bidwell: When my right hon. Friend makes his next ministerial broadcast, will he do me and himself a lot of good by explaining to our people how we are to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families? Does he think that it will be brought about by—?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have one question at a time to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Since I have said that I have no plans for a ministerial broadcast, it is wasting the time of the House to give advice on what I should say in a broadcast I am not going to make. If my hon. Friend had been where I was last night, he would have had a very full answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mrs. Thatcher: When will the Prime Minister concentrate on seeing that this country is properly defended and concentrate his diplomatic policy on seeing that people can fly to freedom from Communist tyranny if they so wish?

The Prime Minister: This country is much better defended within the 94 per cent. of defence expenditure cuts which the right hon. Lady accepted in her broadcast. As for people flying from the Soviet Union, or any other Communist country, I never like to say these things in public, but if she will inquire she will find out how many people have come out of the Soviet Union over the last 20 years as a result of my requests and pressures. I would refer to the statement by Moshe Dayan that Ruth Alessandrovich was let out in response to my requests. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but this is a serious matter. The Israeli ambassador said that the Panovs were released as a result of certain action taken by me. On returning from Romania the right hon. Lady was stupid enough to publish the list of the people she had asked for. I am happy to say that a much larger number have been released this week as the result of my representations.

PRESS COUNCIL

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Press Council.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to meet the Chairman of the Press Council, Sir.

Mr. Brotherton: When the Prime Minister meets the Chairman of the Press Council, will he discuss with him the continued refusal of his Press Office to communicate fully with The Times newspaper? Does he agree that it is a disgrace that these people, who are paid by the taxpayer, should be selective in how they discharge their duties?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that the question of legal proceedings arises here, which the hon. Gentleman, as a former employee of The Times, should know all about. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman what, with his contacts, he should have known—The Times gets exactly the same treatment from No. 10 as any other newspaper, even if it does not always deserve it.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: If my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the Press Council, who happens at the moment to be Lord Shawcross, will he remind that gentleman of his words in the House on 2nd April 1946?—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is about to quote, I can save him from temptation.

Dr. Marshall: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister remind Lord Shawcross of what he said in the House on 2nd April 1946 in winding up for the Government the Third Reading debate on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill—namely, that we are the masters now?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of my then right hon. and learned Friend's political view, but I think his views have changed a little.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He has seen the light.

The Prime Minister: Nevertheless, I feel that one of the most distinguished legal pundits of our time, as he must be acknowledged to be by everyone, will be the first to realise how wrong it is to press questions of this kind when legal proceedings are pending. In any case, I do not want to bother my noble Friend—if he still is—Lord Shawcross, because I know that he will have seen the motion


about the treatment by a certain newspaper of an hon. Member who was interviewed on the telephone and then said to have written an article for that newspaper. As the motion asks for a reference to the Press Council, I am sure that action will be taken.

PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)

Mr Graham: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Edmonton.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Graham: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he opened the new Thorn lighting laboratory last year he met a number of my constituents, members of the work force, who expressed to him their deep concern about the developing situation in the television industry? Bearing in mind the recent improvements in the unemployment figures, what assurances can the Prime Minister give to my constituents in the light of subsequent developments at Skelmersdale, bearing in mind that London has lost more than half a million manufacturing jobs in the last few years?

The Prime Minister: Skelmersdale—which was in my constituency, but is no longer, although many of my constituents work there—was a great tragedy which has been the subject of statements and answers—

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: Highly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is only wasting time.

The Prime Minister: —by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. As the House will be aware, this was a very difficult matter. Every effort was made to save these jobs but the position was made impossible by the withdrawal of the American firm which was in partnership. It was a great tragedy. I do not underrate it and I am well aware of the consequences in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Norman Lamont: If the Prime Minister does visit Edmonton, will he ask the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Prices and Con-

sumer Protection what is the point of a bogus price check scheme consisting of a thin list of items which anyway would not have gone up in price by 5 per cent. over the next six months? Is it not an action calculated to take in only the smallest Chinese minds?

The Prime Minister: There are not many precedents for asking on a Question about a visit to a particular constituency supplementary questions to another Minister through his Parliamentary Private Secretary. It is a total Waste of the time of the House when more important Questions are on the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend has answered these questions in the House and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to take her on again, I shall be glad to pick up the bits when she has finished with him.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (INTERVIEW)

Mr. Michael Latham: Q5. Mr. Michael Latham asked the Prime Minister if the interview given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the economics correspondent of The Guardian, published in the newspaper on 12th February 1976 on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Latham: Is it not clear from that interview that the only views which are likely to matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in forming the next stage of the incomes policy are those of the TUC? Why does he persist in such a one-sided and prejudiced attitude?

The Prime Minister: I have read the article carefully. The Government have decided, and were elected on the proposition, that agreement and consensus and not confrontation with industrial workers is the right way to proceed, and that has been proved by the full acceptance by the country of the counter-inflation policy. Although I have said that I have no plans for a ministerial broadcast, were I to give one I might like to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question by pointing out that the last Tory ministerial broadcast informed the country of the inestimable advantages to the country of a three-day week. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Noble: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Financial Times on Tuesday relating to investment in the regions? What justification have the Government for retaining development area status for Aberdeen, which is now booming, when the North-West is given no additional aids and has the worst record of public investment in the country?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of our scheduling of certain areas within the North-West during our period of office. The question of the de-scheduling of Aberdeen might be a matter of some controversy in the House, and I ask my hon. Friend to address his question to my right hon. Friends who have responsibility for regional matters.

Mr. Tim Renton: Will the Prime Minister explain why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving hints about tax cuts when it is clear from the White Paper on Public Expenditure that he will not be able to afford any tax cuts? Is the Chancellor acting like a "silly Billy"?

The Prime Minister: In reply to that pathetic supplementary question—obviously rehearsed all morning—I say to the hon. Gentleman in time-honoured terms that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. Many Opposition hon. and right, hon. Members have been asking for some time for different treatment of tax matters. My right hon. Friend on the day after the interview made a speech—to which I have referred in the House and which is in the Library—which deals with some of these questions. Naturally, none of us can anticipate his Budget Statement. It will be extremely difficult for my right hon. Friend if he listens to the advice of Opposition hon. and right hon. Members to increase public expenditure, as they advise him to do regularly every week.

Mr. Moonman: On a related theme, will the Prime Minister say when he expects to receive the report on the newspaper industry, in view of the distress which is being suffered by two or three newspapers at present?

The Prime Minister: The House knows that, following the Government's request to the Royal Commission to prepare an interim report on the economic position

of newspapers, the two sides in the newspaper industry, including most of the principal unions, got together for the first time in history. I believe that they are in agreement and have produced a forward-looking document. That document is being urgently studied by the Royal Commission, which I understand hopes to report within a very short time. I cannot anticipate the report. I do not know what will be in it. But whatever report the Royal Commission makes will be for the Government and the House to study.

Mr. Henderson: May I revert to the Prime Minister's answer about Aberdeen? Is he aware that if there is any attempt to give way to an English backlash to the detriment of outer areas, there will be opposition in the House and outside?

The Prime Minister: There will be no giving way to ignorance whether from England, Scotland or anywhere else. While it is true that North Sea developments have had a significant effect on economic activities in certain parts of Scotland, there is anxiety about the rigs programme because of the timing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 1ST MARCH—Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill.

Motion on the Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order.

TUESDAY 2ND MARCH—Second Reading of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill and of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 3RD MARCH—Second Reading of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Bill [Lords].

At 7 o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

THURSDAY 4TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill.

Motion on EEC Documents R/3113/73 and R/1150/75 on lead pollution.

FRISDAY 5TH MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 8TH MARCH—Debate on "Public Expenditure to 1979–80" Command No. 6393.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Monday 8th March will be the first day of a two-day debate in Government time on the White Paper on Public Expenditure? There is a great demand for a two-day debate, and in the past the Government have given two days where there has been a demand for it from the House.
Secondly, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has tabled no fewer than seven new clauses to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now in Standing Committee, which have the effect of introducing a substantially new principle into the Bill. It is quite right that these new clauses should be debated separately in Committee upstairs, but there is no way of debating the principle of those seven new clauses together, as should be done in a Second Reading debate, except by bringing the Bill back to the Floor of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore provide time on the Floor of the House for a debate on the new principle in that Bill?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong on both points. First, there is not a single example where two days were given for the public expenditure debate, except in 1971, when the Conservative Government borrowed a day from the Opposition. On every other occasion when there has been a two-day debate, the Government and the Opposition have each provided a day. There will be a two-day debate provided that the Opposition are willing to devote a Supply Day to it.
The right hon. Lady is quite wrong on the second point about the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I have read the Second Reading debate very carefully. The principle of family succession was debated then.

Mr. Jopling: That is totally untrue.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman should re-read the debate. It is no good his sitting there and saying that what I have said is totally untrue. It was at the request of the Opposition that we provided the opportunity to debate these new clauses in Committee. We also agreed to their request to adjourn the Committee for nine days in order to give them time to examine them.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman used a curious expression about borrowing a day from the Opposition. That is quite different from taking a day from the Opposition. Which does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

Mr. Short: If the right hon. Lady knew anything about the running of the House of Commons, she would know what I mean.

Mr. Faulds: When are we to have some progress towards a public lending right Bill?

Mr. Short: Very shortly, I hope.

Sir David Renton: The seven new clauses tabled by the Minister are outside the scope of the Long Title to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Therefore, to expect them to be discussed from the beginning in Standing Committee has the effect of turning that Committee into a Second Reading Committee in circumstances which the House as a whole would not approve for reference to a Second Reading Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore look at this matter again?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I will look again at anything which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to look at. But I imagine that the new clauses would not be in order if they were not within the Long Title to the Bill. It was at the request of the Opposition that they were put down to be debated in Committee. Again at the request of the Opposition, we have adjourned the Committee for nine days in order to give them time to consider the clauses. They all deal with family succession, and family succession was debated on Second Reading.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend seized of the importance of Early-Day


Motion No. 221, dealing with rail cuts which affect my constituents? [That this House urges British Rail to defer any cuts in services between Watford and Euston and Broad Street until the Government has issued the Report of the Working Party on transport policy; is of the opinion that the present proposals are against the interests of the travelling public and the best interests of railway future prosperity; and believes that instead of reducing services and increasing fares the opposite policy should be pursued to encourage the use of public transport and ease road congestion by private cars.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that these cuts take place next Monday? In view of my reluctance to detain the House in seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, and as the time we have left is not sufficient to deal with the matter otherwise, will my right hon. Friend have urgent consultations to see whether something cannot be done to prevent the cuts being made on Monday?

Mr. Short: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall pass his views to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.

Mr. Cormack: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet seen the Second Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure, published today, dealing with defence? Will he arrange for it to be debated at an early opportunity in view of its all-party damning indictment of the Government?

Mr. Short: The White Paper on Defence will be published in about three weeks' time, and there will then in all be five days of debates on defence. We have a great deal of time to give to defence matters.

Mr. Heffer: As we have recently had debates on the Floor of the House on the problems of Wales and Scotland, notwithstanding that there are Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees and the Regional Committee, is it not time that we had a debate in this Chamber on the problems of the North-West of England, particularly those affecting Merseyside, where unemployment is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom and where investment over the years has been lower than in any other part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Short: I know the problems of Merseyside are probably more acute than those anywhere else in the country at present, but I cannot offer any time in the House for debating them in the near future. If my hon. Friend would like a debate in the Regional Committee, I can arrange that very quickly indeed.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Ministers of the EEC are to discuss next Monday a proposal from COMECON for a comprehensive trade agreement with the EEC? In view of the importance of that proposal in the context of our relations with the Soviet Union generally, will he invite the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week to the House about the result of those talks?

Mr. Short: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that, which I agree is a matter of some importance.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my hon. Friend say anything further about the possibility of a very early debate on the position of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries, especially in view of the strong pressure from the North-East about this subject, and possibly including the oil rig situation as well?

Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time in the very near future, but I said last week that I would bear this matter in mind. I know that there are serious problems in the North-East, with even more serious ones coming in the near future. The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill will be returning to the House in the not too far distant future, I hope, but I think that there is probably a case for a debate in addition to that at some time.

Mr. Wiggin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Bill then before the House contained no item whatever about the succession of tenancies? Will he agree that, while it is true that two of his hon. Friends brought up the matter during the debate, that is not the same as debating the matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the Bill now contains as many clauses dealing with landlord and tenant legislation as it does about other matters? Will he agree that it is only right and just that we should have a full debate on the Floor of the


House about this substantial change of principle?

Mr. Short: I have replied to this twice very fully and comprehensively. It is a very strange theory that, if matters are raised from this side in a debate, that is not debating them.

Mr. Grocott: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 211 on penal policy and alternatives to prison which already has 108 signatures attached to it?

[That this House, concerned by the increase in the prison population and with the overcrowding in prisons, calls for an early debate on penal policy and alternatives to imprisonment.]

Will my right hon. Friend agree that we should arrange for a debate as soon as possible on this subject, and that probably a great deal of expenditure is being wasted unnecessarily on imprisoning people who really should not be imprisoned?

Mr. Short: I think it is a very important matter. As I have said before, it is one of the subjects that I shall certainly bear in mind. If time becomes available, I shall try to find time to debate it.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of the somewhat confused and somewhat churlish remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the public expenditure debate, are we to take it that his reference to the 1971 precedent means that, if the debate is continued in Opposition time, he will follow that precedent and give the Opposition an extra day later on?

Mr. Short: As to churlish remarks, having listened to some of the remarks made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the 15 minutes when he was answering Questions, I should have thought that nobody on the Opposition side of the House ought to say anything about churlish remarks.
Concerning the other point, I have made an offer. I have said that we shall give a day if the Opposition give one of the 29 days that they have in a year. If they will give one of their 29 days, there can certainly be a two-day debate.

Mr. Peyton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being a bit free with the charges he makes against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? My right hon. Friend has not in any way been uncivil to the Prime Minister.
Concerning the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, does the Leader of the House recall that there was no question before the House in the sense of any such proposals being contained in the Bill? Now that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has almost literally sicked up on to the face of the Bill some wholly new proposals, would not it be right if these were given a Second Reading debate?
Concerning his reply to my right hon. Friend on the time for the debate on the Public Expenditure White Paper, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he expressly used the word "borrow"? If the Government wish to borrow a day of the Opposition's time, they are welcome to do so in order that we can have a two-day debate, but will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, unless he is wholly altering the meaning of language, "borrow" involves subsequent repayment involves subsequent repayment?

Mr. Short: If the right hon. Gentleman would like us to go into that, I draw his attention to the fact that he owes us three and a half days from the period before the last Conservative Government went out of office and which have never been repaid.
The facts are these. During the time of the last Government, a two-day debate was held in December 1971. In December 1972 there was a one-day debate. In 1973–74 there was a one-day debate. Last year there was no debate at all. I am proposing that we give a day and that the Opposition give one of their 29 days.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Mr. Peyton: I have just asked a question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. Mr. Kilroy-Silk.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, given that the population of the North-West is larger than that of both Scotland and Wales, that the unemployment rate in the North-West is


considerably higher and that the industrial problems are far more severe, it would be desirable, in order to protect our interests, to have a Question Time for Questions on the North-West? Will he seriously consider this proposal?

Mr. Short: If we had Questions for the North-West we should have to have them for every region in the country, and that is not possible at all.

Mr. Montgomery: Has it been drawn to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that on Tuesday morning in Standing Committee E, discussing the Education Bill, there was no Minister present on behalf of the Department of Education and Science?

Mr. Speaker: It is not customary to ask questions relating to what has happened upstairs in Committee while the Committee is still sitting.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House of Lords has recently yet again rejected a section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill and that Lord Goodman yet again seems to have been involved in this? Is it not time that this House had a debate about abolishing that totally undemocratic assembly, because yet again it is breaching the elected will of the Commons? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in the very near future he will put down a motion for sound broadcasting of the proceedings of this House?

Mr. Short: On the second question, the answer is "Yes". As to the first question, I said in the last Session that, once this Bill reaches the statute book, we can take a long, cool look at the whole passage of the Bill and see what conclusions we can draw from that.

Mr. Peyton: I very much regret that it should be necessary to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have just asked him a question about providing time for debating a wholly new principle which has now been introduced into the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer that?

Mr. Short: I thought I had answered this question three times already. If the clauses, which all deal with the same topic, come within the Long Title, it is

not a new principle. If they come within the Long Title it is perfectly in order. I should have thought that it would be perfectly fair. We have arranged for the clauses to be debated in the Committee at the request of the Conservative Opposition, and we also adjourned the Committee for nine days at their request. If they would like a rather longer adjournment, I am prepared to look at that.

Mr. John Davies: Will the Lord President tell us when we are to debate the question of European union and the Tindemans Report, bearing in mind that there is a meeting of the European Council in the early days of April and that the House should debate the matter before then?

Mr. Short: I cannot say at the moment when there will be a debate.

Mr. Michael McGuire: May I reinforce the plea made to my right hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and ask the Lord President to give consideration to a day's debate at least on the problems of the North-West? Does he realise that we shall no longer be fobbed off with a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms to discuss a matter that requires urgent attention? Concerning Question Time itself, am I right in understanding that I have my right hon. Friend's tacit aproval to the point I put to him on Monday, namely, that the time is long overdue for us to have our own Question Time and possibly a Minister for the North-West?

Mr. Short: I answered the second question when it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). As to the first question, I am afraid that I cannot offer any time in the near future, but I do not agree that my suggestion of a debate in the Regional Committee is fobbing off my hon. Friends. Any hon. Member can attend that Committee, and some very important and very good debates have taken place there. All I said was that we could arrange a debate very quickly, in the very near future, if my hon. Friends would be agreeable to having one in the Regional Committee. But I cannot provide any time in the House for a debate on the North-West in the near future.

Mr. Pym: It is quite true that on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill we asked for the new clauses, as we thought they would be about hereditary tenancies, to be taken upstairs in the Committee and for a nine-day adjournment of the Committee to enable us to consider them. Had it not been for that, the first knowledge that the House would have had of them would have been on Report.
What we are now asking is that, in view of the fact that the Bill has seven new clauses—eight pages of closely-printed paper, about half the length of the original Bill, and never in the original Bill—it would be right in House of Commons terms to have a procedure whereby the whole seven clauses could be debated together.
As regards the Second Reading of a new Bill before it is loked at clause by clause in Committee, we think that there ought to be a separate Bill but we accepted that the proposals should go into this Bill in Committee. However, as it will be substantially a new Bill, surely the correct procedure is to debate the whole package in principle first and then in detail in Committee.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that what I said was exactly correct on both points and that he asked for this. I shall consider what he has said, as I always do, because he understands the House. The procedure being followed is absolutely correct. The clauses would not be in order if they fell outside the Long Title. I imagine that the Table would not have allowed them to be tabled if they fell outside the Long Title. There was an opportunity in the Second Reading debate to discuss them. I agree that setting them out in legislative form has involved more clauses than anyone expected. It is certainly longer. But I shall look at the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. William Hamilton: When does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce a motion setting up a Select Committee on the procedures of this House? Will he assure us that the terms of reference will be such as to ensure that the Committee is able to send for any person, including any Minister, that it thinks fit and relevant to its investigation, without

any veto by the Prime Minister or anyone else?

Mr. Short: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "In the very near future". The answer to the second part is that the terms of reference with regard to sending for persons will be exactly as they are for any other Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), may I ask the Leader of the House whether he does not agree that no clause in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which formed the basis of the Second Reading debate even remotely mentioned the inheritance of tenancies? Therefore, will not the right hon. Gentleman give very serious consideration to honouring this House and allowing it to have a Second Reading debate on these clauses, which are a big departure from the original Bill?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Skinner: Despite my right hon. Friend's stout resistance on this Agriculture Bill, is he aware that there will be continued opposition to it when the hatchet men belonging to the Tory Party take care of it in the House of Lords? Is not that another good reason why we should debate some legislation to abolish the House of Lords, bearing in mind especially that 240 life peers have been created by the present Prime Minister—a record throughout history—and yet we cannot get 100 people in that other place to vote Labour?

Mr. Wells: I am sure the Leader of the House is aware that horticultural tenancies have always had very much greater security than ordinary agricultural tenancies. Can there be a special examination of the position of horticultural tenancies when these new clauses in the Bill are examined in Committee, because the point made by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the need for something like a Second Reading of these clauses dealing with the inheritance of tenancies may apply particularly in the case of horticulture?

Mr. Short: I have now replied to the second part of the question five or six


times. As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, I imagine that those hon. Members who are on the Committee will have heard what he said and no doubt they can be relied upon to debate the matter when the clauses come up for discussion.

Mr. Marten: Coming down to the ordinary, everyday life of the people, may I ask whether the Leader of the House has noticed Early-Day Motion No. 218, the implication of which is that the British people want to eat their poultry in the way they like it and not in a way that some plastic-minded person in Brussels wishes them to do?
[That this House believes that the EEC Directives about the production and sale of fresh poultry should be deferred ad infinitum.]
In view of the general mounting public feeling on this matter, can we have a half-day debate on the subject before too long? I do not say next week.

Mr. Short: I seem to remember speaking at great length and quite learnedly on this subject during the Adjournment debate before the Christmas Recess. I have no doubt that, with his usual ingenuity, the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity for a debate. I shall pass on what he said to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I may say that I dislike plastic minds and plastic poultry.

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the position of the sugar industry? Is he aware of the growing concern being expressed by workers in the sugar industry, and does he not think it is about time that this House debated the industry and the implications that the Sugar Corporation may have for employment in Merseyside, Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Short: I am aware that there are problems in the sugar industry at present. There may be an opportunity to debate them in a general debate on economic matters. But I share my hon. Friend's concern about the industry.

Mr. Clegg: Can the Leader of the House say whether on Monday, when we deal with the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, we shall have available the draft Regulations which the Minister intends to

make, since we cannot have an intelligent debate without them?

Mr. Short: I do not know about that. I am afraid that this is one I cannot answer. I shall consult my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport about it.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said about Early-Day Motion No. 221? In view of the fact that a cruel blow is to be dealt on Monday by British Railways to the service from Watford to Euston, will my right hon. Friend try to do something about it before it is too late?

Mr. Short: I said that I would refer this matter immediately to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, although I doubt very much whether he can intervene at this late stage.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind that since this Government came to office unemployment in the North-West of England has more than doubled as a direct result of Government policies, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about an immediate debate on the problems of the North-West Region?

Mr. Short: I said that we could have an immediate debate in the Regional Committee but that there was no prospect of a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment on the cause of unemployment, it is due to the appalling mess that we inherited from the Conservatives. It was the most appalling situation inherited by any Government in this country in peace time.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the problems of the mineral extractive industries, which are meeting increasing problems in terms of planning consents and priorities with regard to the environment? There is a terrible muddle, and the sooner that it is straightened out the better for all concerned.

Mr. Short: I know that there are many problems here. Perhaps I might discuss them with my right hon. Friends and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McCrindle: Will the Leader of the House ask either the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week about what appears to be the new policy of the Government with regard to the right of a British citizen to hold a passport? Is he aware that certain mercenaries are having their passports retained and conditions applied to their return which, in the view of some of us, run the risk of infringing civil liberties?

Mr. Short: There is a very important and high-powered Committee looking into this very matter.

Mr. Gow: Will the Lord President reconsider his decision about having only a one-day debate on the Public Expenditure White Paper? Does he not think that that matter is of sufficient importance to warrant a two-day debate? As the right hon. Gentleman has looked into the precedents, will he tell us what precedent there is for treating the Leader of Opposition with that discourtesy and insolence which he showed to my right hon. Friend this afternoon?

Mr. Short: I seem to recollect some discourtesy and insolence from the hon. Gentleman directed at myself and many other Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman is the last person to talk about discourtesy and insolence. He has displayed very bad parliamentary manners since he came to this House.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would mind reminding the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Leader of the House, that as an arbiter of parliamentary manners and conduct you have precedence over him?

Mr. Speaker: And that is no easy job in this place.
Before we turn to the next business and that short debate begins, I have a brief statement to make. Apart from Front Bench spokesmen, who will, I hope, bear in mind that Back Benchers are entitled to a fair share of the brief time available, 15 hon. Members have indicated to me their wish to speak in this next short debate. In my judgment it is selfish for long speeches to be made under those circumstances. It is not my responsibility to control the length of speeches, neither do I want it to be. However, it is necessary for me to remind the House that we have only—[Interruption.] Order. It is very wrong for the Front Bench to interrupt when Mr. Speaker addresses the House. I remind the House that there is only a brief time available. The only other thing I wish to say is that I have a very long memory in these matters.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has just accused my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) of insolence and lack of parliamentary manners. If that is to become a way by which the Leader of the House can censure hon. Members, can we have further guidance as to what constitutes insolence and lack of parliamentary manners?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am no authority on such matters.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on that question.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY

4.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I beg to move,
That the Statement on Civil Aviation Policy Guidance, to be given by the Secretary of State to the Civil Aviation Authority in pursuance of section 3(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 with respect to the performance of its functions, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved in pursuance of section 3(3) of that Act.

Mr. Speaker: For the convenience of the House, with this motion we shall discuss the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
That this House rejects the Secretary of State for Trade's decision to cancel Laker Airways Skytrain designation and to require the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke the Skytrain licence contrary to the Authority's considered view that it should be allowed to stand.

Mr. Shore: I welcome the opportunity which this debate provides for the House to consider the proposed changes in civil aviation policy. In due course I shall comment on Skytrain in particular, which is the subject of the separate motion in the name of Opposition Members.
I shall also try to take full account, Mr. Speaker, of your very formidable strictures about the length of speeches. However, these are rather comprehensive guidelines which somehow I must try to cover in the time available.
I know that many people in the airline industry and indeed on both sides of this House believe that there have been too many changes in aviation policy in recent years. That is a view which I share. We all know that success in the aviation industry now demands massive investment, long-term planning and sustained attention to the needs of the market over a long period. Frequent changes are therefore to be avoided, and it is my hope that the Policy Guidance that we are debating today will remain substantially unaltered for a considerable period of years ahead.
Nevertheless there were two fundamental reasons why I considered a review of policy in 1974 to be essential. First, the oil crisis at the end of 1973 had radically changed the airline industry's future prospects. For a quarter of a century the

industry had enjoyed rapid and virtually uninterrupted growth. Naturally some years were better than others, but the clear trend was for our airlines to carry more and more traffic, for fares to go on declining in real terms and for new routes and services to be introduced every year. All this was brought abruptly to an end by the oil crisis.
The price of aviation fuel rose within a year by about three and a half times and inflation hit other costs and so fares in real terms, far from continuing to decline, had to go up sharply. Passenger traffic carried by British airlines fell by over 10 per cent. in 1974. That is a setback much greater than the industry has faced in the past.
The Civil Aviation Authority's latest figures show that in terms of passenger miles international traffic carried by our airlines was up by only 4 per cent. last year as compared with 1974. In other words, our airlines will need to have a good year in 1976 if they are to get back to the traffic levels first achieved in 1973. Looking ahead to the rest of this decade, there is nothing to suggest that traffic growth will be approaching the rates of 12–15 per cent. to which the industry had become accustomed in the years before 1973.
So our airlines have to face a more difficult and more uncertain prospect at least for some years to come. I am sure I was right to ask what policy changes were needed to reinforce their competitive strength in this period.
My second main reason for deciding to review policy was the growing and widespread concern that double designation of British airlines, especially on long-haul routes, was the wrong basis for aviation policy. Even when the Edwards Committee reported in 1969, it concluded that although markets were rapidly expanding then, scope for double designation was very limited. Apart from the United States, there were even then few other countries prepared to allow unfettered competition by British airlines with their national flag carriers.
Nevertheless, the Policy Guidance approved by Parliament in 1972 presupposed that double designation was in principle desirable and indicated that the Civil Aviation Authority should license more than one British airline to serve the


same scheduled route wherever it was satisfied that certain criteria were likely to be met. British Caledonian had already been given licences to serve New York and Los Angeles and in 1973 it was licensed by the CAA to operate to Toronto, Boston and Singapore via Bahrain as well. In addition, of course, the Authority had licensed Laker Airways to operate Skytrain on the London-New York route.
BCAL's unsuccessful attempt to establish itself on the New York and Los Angeles routes in 1973–74 showed just how difficult it was for a second British airline to secure and retain a profitable share of major long-haul markets, in direct competition with other countries' main flag carriers as well as with British Airways. After the oil crisis, it became more difficult than ever for us to introduce a second British airline on to a major route on terms which left any possibility of increasing our share of the earnings from that route.
Even where the other country concerned is still prepared in principle to accept double designation of British airlines, it is almost invariably only on conditions which completely protect the interests of its own national airline. In these circumstances, it really makes no sense at all to insist on dividing up our predetermined share of the market between two British carriers. The effect would only be to increase costs with little or no prospect of increasing revenues.
The effect of double designation on BCAL has already been noted. It was forced to withdraw from New York and Los Angeles in September 1974. But the effect on British Airways of the double designation policy was damaging, too. It found, in a whole series of cases, that it was being expected to face competition from another British airline in circumstances in which it would inevitably lose some of its share of the market without being able to make a commensurate saving in costs. Not only that, but it was left in a state of uncertainty about the future of many other routes, so that it could not plan ahead with the necessary confidence. And when new international routes became available, BA was always left as the second in the queue, since the present Guidance requires the CAA to

give preference to BCAL. So it seemed to me that, in important respects, existing policy was neither sensible nor just.
When the review of policy was completed last summer and I came to take decisions, I had four objectives very much in mind. I wanted, first, to strengthen our airline industry and to ensure that its resources and energies were in future turned, not against itself in unnecessary and damaging competition between British airlines but against foreign carriers which constituted the main challenge on international routes.
My second objective was to safeguard the employment the airline industry provides, particularly in a period when unemployment is a growing menace to the well-being of our people.
Thirdly, I wanted to produce an outcome that would be fair not only to the private sector airlines which make their own varied and valuable contribution to the industry but also and demonstrably to British Airways, which, as the national carrier, plays much the largest part in our total civil aviation effort and which was subjected to such arbitrary and discriminatory treatment some four years ago. Finally, my aim was to achieve a settlement sufficiently strong in aviation terms and in its general acceptability that it would last and so give the industry that greater stability which it undoubtedly needs.
As the House knows, I considered a number of policy options, including the nationalisation of BCAL and a merger with BA. But it was clear to me that such a merger must inevitably have been followed by a process of rationalisation that would have cost many of BCAL's workers their jobs. It would also have caused a serious setback to our policy of building up traffic at Gatwick and so to the general airports strategy we have been developing. I bore in mind, too, the views of many of BCAL's own staff who were very anxious that their airline should retain its separate identity, and I also bore in mind the views of many members of the travelling public, in England and Scotland, who have found BCAL to be a well-run and effective airline.
I also considered very carefully, as indeed I was bound to do, the proposals of my own party to reverse the route


transfers which the previous Government had imposed in 1972 and thus to return to BA the West African and other routes which were then so peremptorily taken away. This was a perfectly feasible course when it was first proposed and remained so until the oil crisis in late 1973 altered the whole aviation picture. Up to then BCAL would still have been able, in the growth conditions that then pertained, to sustain itself on other dual designation routes and in the charter field. But to return those routes in the conditions of 1975 and 1976 would have been to threaten the very existence of BCAL and to put in jeopardy thousands of jobs at Gatwick and elsewhere. At the very least, if I were to avoid a collapse of BCAL, I would have felt obliged to continue the policy of double designation, to put BCAL at the earliest moment on Toronto and Singapore—even though this would have damaged BA and would have been against the new strategy that I have announced.
So I concluded that the best solution was to end double designation and establish instead separate long-haul spheres of interest for BA and BCAL. The industry's reactions to the statements I made to the House last July and earlier this month suggest that in this way I have had some measure of success in meeting the four objectives I set myself. I did not expect to satisfy everyone completely. But I believe that there is a widespread feeling in the industry that the new Policy Guidance we are debating today will provide a sensible and reasonable framework within which all our airlines can work and develop.
I believe, too, that there has been general acceptance that my decision on BA's and BCAL's spheres of interest was fair and likely to benefit both airlines. BA will gain considerably both from the route exchanges in Africa and from the withdrawal of BCAL's licences on the double designation routes. BA will now be able to make long-term plans for developing the routes to North America and Singapore without the anxiety that at some point in the future BCAL would want to introduce services which would inevitably have cut into BA's share of the market.
For its part, BCAL will in my view have substantial scope for future expansion. In addition to the network it

is already operating it will have the route to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru, which should in due course be capable of expansion to include Ecuador. And it will also be the British airline designated to operate the route to Atlanta and Houston when it becomes available for international services. With a sphere of interest that includes West and Central Africa, South America and the Atlanta-Houston route, BCAL will be established in markets that should grow rapidly in line with the development of the local economies.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): What steps will the Secretary of State be taking with the American authorities to ensure that BCAL is approved by the American authorities on the Atlanta and Houston routes?

Mr. Shore: That is a matter of our tactics or approach under the Air Services Agreements and, in consultation with BCAL, we shall certainly be prepared at the right moment to put forward our proposals for that route.
I was glad to see that both BA and BCAL have expressed resasonable satisfaction with my decision, although I naturally appreciate that both would have preferred an outcome that was more favourable to their particular point of view. BA said in a statement that
this route exchange is…one which we can live with.…The industry badly needs stability and we welcome the declared wish that the new policy should stand for a considerable period of years.
BCAL has made it clear that it believes that it has been given "a workable system" and it, too, has welcomed the ending of uncertainty so that it can plan positively for the future.
Perhaps I for my part could take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to both airlines for the co-operative way in which they conducted the long and detailed discussions I had with them and of welcoming the determination both have shown to achieve further success in the future in their respective spheres of interest.
I now turn to Skytrain. Clearly, in the wake of BCAL's financially enforced withdrawal from the London-New York route as recently as September 1974, and having in my policy review subsequently


arrived at the strong conclusion that double designation on long-haul routes is not in the interests of British aviation, it would need arguments of quite exceptional strength to persuade the Government to sanction a new scheduled service on this long-haul route.
Few people will argue, and few do, that we should do so today. In its review of the Skytrain proposals at the beginning of last year the CAA conceded:
We are forced to the conclusion that the Skytrain service should not be inaugurated until the market has resumed a healthy rate of growth…clearly on all forecasts it is unlikely to be for at least 12 months but nobody could today foresee with any degree of precision the date which may be appropriate for launching the service.
Certainly we have not yet reached that healthy rate of growth that makes it even possible to contemplate such a service.
So the issue before us is not that of starting a Skytrain now—about which I think we would all agree—but whether we should keep it on ice or make a decision. If I had been seeking a quiet life, and with full knowledge of Mr. Laker's formidable powers of advocacy, I might well have been tempted to the former course, but I do not think it would be right to do so, and for these reasons: first, we are not contemplating a small or experimental service in Skytrain. We are dealing with a massive addition to airline capacity on the New York route.
I must confess that the figures startled me when I looked in detail at what was proposed. Skytrain has been licensed to provide 250,000 extra seats yearly on the New York run, when the total number of passengers on both scheduled and charter flights between London and New York is only 1.1 million. Further, it is our firm view and, indeed, that of the CAA that a British Skytrain would be matched probably from the start with an American Skytrain of the same capacity—so in total we are talking about an extra 500,000 seats on the New York-London route. Let me remind the House that the total number of passengers that BA carried from London to New York and back last year was some 330,000.
The consequences of such a massive extension of capacity are in my view

wholly predictable. There would be a major diversion of traffic from the scheduled carriers, both BA and the American airlines, to the new competing Skytrains. In the last few years, as everyone connected with aviation knows, there has been continued over-capacity on North American routes as a whole and on New York in particular. Total losses on North Atlantic services, according to IATA figures, reached some £300 million in 1974.
Second, it is not true today, whatever was the position in 1972, that passengers cannot cross the Atlantic at much reduced fares. ABC Charters were introduced in 1973 and now offer return fares of £150 at the peak, £124 at the shoulder and £108 in the winter against the Skytrain fare of £118 return. There is not much in it. More recently, in April 1975—very recently indeed—APEX was introduced on scheduled flights, offering seats at £167 in the summer and as litle as £123 in the winter. Of course, these seats have to be booked in advance and there are further conditions affecting the length of stay in the United States and United Kingdom respectively, but certainly a substantial new opportunity has been provided for cheap air travel across the Atlantic since the Skytrain licence was issued in 1972. That is a fact that the House must face.
I will not weary the House with all the complex calculations about balance of payments gains and losses which have been set out in Mr. Laker's own imaginative pamphlet and which have been reexamined in a somewhat more sober way in the paper that was placed in the Vote Office yesterday. But our best calculations are that the balance of payments would not gain from such services—although I would not go to the stake on any particular figure, negative or positive, up to £10 million a year either way. But what is quite certain is that BA would suffer a substantial loss of revenue—at least £6 million a year—and that all attempts to make sense of over-capacity on the New York-London route would be undermined.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the London-New York route. What is the present ratio of sharing between British and American airlines, and what does


he envisage as the figure he would like to achieve?

Mr. Shore: I would like, of course, to achieve the maximum possible. I have a figure for the present ratio in mind but prefer to check it first, so I will ask my hon. Friend to supply it at the end of the debate.
Lastly, I have, of course, considered the effects on Laker Airways and I have not approached this in anything but a serious way. But we would be naïve indeed if we accepted that Mr. Laker's decision to order two DC10s just 10 days after the licence was issued by the CAA, before the appeal against it had even been heard, before the Department of Trade had designated Skytrain, or the authority of the American Government had even been sought, and before Mr. Laker could have known what conditions would be applied, was wholly dependent upon the Skytrain licence. Not so. Mr. Laker has made, with his accustomed flair, substantial and profitable use of his DC 10s and we would be even more naïve if we were to believe, as some hon. and right hon. Members have suggested in the motion on the Order Paper, that a Rolls-Royce powered DC 10 would be launched with six orders from Mr. Laker if only he were granted his Skytrain licence.
My belief is that Laker Airways will continue to be successful in its charter business and particularly in North America. In my view it is not a company that depends on Skytrain for its future. It is a large and growing business and my Department is ready to continue to support it in its future development.
I have indicated where I disagree with the CAA on this matter. The CAA would like to be given greater freedom to allow double designation on long-haul routes, but I do not think that this is possible without introducing an undesirable element of uncertainty which would disrupt the long-term planning of both BA and BCAL. The House will however have noticed that in the second half of paragraph 7 of the Policy Guidance I have provided scope for the Authority to licence another airline to operate a long-haul scheduled service within the sphere of interests of BA or BCAL subject to certain conditions. I believe it is right that the Authority should have this discretion to deal with the situation in

which one or other of the preferred airlines might not be doing as much as they should to develop services in their respective spheres.
The Policy Guidance is intended to cover the whole range of the CAA's activities. Outside the important area of long-haul scheduled services I have made, as the House will recognise, only minor changes. My aim has been to leave the CAA with a substantial measure of discretion. Many aspects—the economic regulation and determination of fares is just one example—require from the Authority decisions that are crucial to the health of the industry. In terms of investment and manpower, its chief functions are the provision of navigation services and safety regulations. Neither as to its performance nor as to its finance am I proposing any material change in policy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will seek to deal with any aspects of these activities that may interest the House at the end of the debate.
The Authority has been in existence for only four years and this is not perhaps a long enough period to allow us to make a final judgment on the merits of the major change in the machinery of government which its establishment involved. I am sure that the House will agree, however, that our preliminary assessment must be a favourable one. In commending to the House the revised Policy Guidance I propose to give to the Authority, I should like to underline my view that what is needed now is a change of emphasis, not a completely fresh start. I am confident that the new Guidance gets the emphasis right and so will provide a framework within which the British civil aviation industry will continue to develop and prosper.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would say a word—or encourage his hon. Friend to do so at the end of the debate—about the small independent airlines which he did not mention at all, particularly with regard to the contradiction which seems to exist between paragraphs 6 and 15 of the Guidance whereby they are encouraged to develop domestic routes which, by and large, are uneconomic, yet have none of the advantages of the more profitable longer international routes.

Mr. Shore: I will ask my hon. Friend to say something about small independent airlines with which, I am glad to say, we have had considerable discussions and from which we have received evidence during the course of the policy review. But their position overall is that they have come out of the review with their position more or less unaffected.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The Secretary of State has moved his motion seeking approval of the new Policy Guidance set out in Command Paper 6400. I say "moved his motion" because curiously enough it does not carry an asterisk and does not appear to be a Government motion. I make no direct comment on that because for reasons which I will explain I will recommend to my hon. and right hon. Friends that they should not vote against the Secretary of State's motion.
I am glad to know that Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to suggest that we might debate with this motion that standing on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself. At the appropriate movement I shall hope to move that motion formally and call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Division Lobby in favour of it.
I also hope that we shall have support from hon. Members of other parties in view of the Early-Day Motion which has been signed not only by hon. Members on this side but by Labour Back Benchers. I therefore hope that we shall succeed in persuading the House to approve the Opposition motion.
I shall deal with the details of the Skytrain argument towards the end of my speech. I would only say now that there is an intrinsic contradiction in the Secretary of State's position. He argues that Skytrain offers passengers nothing significantly better than is currently available but also that the public would prefer it to such an extent that it would have a traumatic effect on its competitors. He cannot have it both ways. That is the heart of the matter.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government have some inbuilt prejudice against encouraging initiative and enterprise or allowing an entre-

preneur to take risks which if successful would bring profits and if unsuccessful would bring losses. Of course it is not as simple as that, and I shall deal with the details of this matter towards the end of my speech.
I want to keep my speech as short as possible because, as Mr. Speaker has said, many hon. Members wish to speak and it is unfortunate that we do not have more time to debate these issues. If in curtailing my remarks I concentrate most on Skytrain, I hope that that will not be taken as an underestimate by me of the importance of the other issues. Certainly the major issue is the division of routes between British Airways and British Caledonian. I should not like the brevity of my speech to imply that I have any lack of perspective about the importance of the various questions involved in the review that we are debating.
The Secretary of State is probably right to say that the route transfer is not now at the centre of controversy. I did not envy him his task in trying to work out a suitable exchange of routes. He had to make a judgment of Solomon. Curiously, once he had made the judgment, in the same way as Solomon made his—by cutting up the "baby"—the two "mothers" said "That is fine. We shall settle for our piece of it." It would be wrong to suppose that the baby was split down the middle. I am not sure of the exact figures, but the proportions were about 90–10 in revenue terms.
As I said in response to the Secretary of State's statement on 11th February, I believe, as he believes, that what is necessary now is a framework within which the airlines can undertake investment, particularly in wide-bodied aircraft, which necessarily requires some political stability. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come out in support of the second force concept, but we should appreciate that there is still a big imbalance between the two forces. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that no one believes that it is possible to forecast exactly how these things will develop, because of the number of variables. Some of the routes which have been changed are already highly developed, while others are comparatively undeveloped, so we cannot tell at this moment how the balance will


change in future. Although the general framework is set, we shall have to watch the precise situation in the light of developments. This is a rapidly developing industry and one of the most difficult to forecast.
That being so, the Secretary of State has arrived at a good arrangement in dividing the routes so that British Caledonian has the centre of the map, the area in which British is slightly offset to the right—

Mr. Neil Marten: Hear, hear.

Mr. Higgins: I had not seen that interpretation of my remark, but indeed I believe that the United Kingdom is slightly offset to the Right.
A map of that sort, with. British Caledonian having the centre, is among the more sensible arrangements which could be devised. We hope that the fact that it still has rights to Houston-Atlanta will enable it to develop in future. The important thing is that both airlines should have a framework in which they can invest with reasonable certainty about the future.
The airlines face a difficult situation at present. As the Secretary of State has said, there will not be competition on routes by dual designation. In present circumstances he makes a powerful case for that, but it would be a shame if we were not to appreciate the real advantages which may come in more buoyant conditions from dual designation on particular routes. That also is something that we shall need to watch carefully in the light of events. The Secretary of State himself said that there would need to be arguments in quite exceptional circumstances for him to change his view. I hope that that means that he is not proposing to take a dogmatic attitude.
That brings me to the guidelines. In his statement on 11th February, the Secretary of State said that the CAA
would prefer…generally, that wider discretion should be left to the licensing system in the control of long-haul scheduled services."—[Official Report, 11th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 444.]
That is probably right, but the crucial thing at this stage is that the guidelines should be clear. It is apparent that they have been drafted many times, and I am

somewhat concerned about some of the redrafting. If the drafting is not clear, a great deal of time, money and effort may be wasted in arguing a particular case before the CAA.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the guidance are remarkably obscure. There appear to be some contradictions. This is only guidance, but, unlike the situation in which a Minister's views are not taken into account in a court of law, the Minister's views on this matter could be taken into account by the CAA. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to clarify the precise relationship between paragraphs 7 and 8. The guidance given there is rather like the guidance one would get by asking directions of a man one bumped into in the fog.
There is clearly a Concorde exception, but there are also exceptions which apparently enable the CAA, under paragraph 7, to grant licences, provided that there is no objection. But there is then a further qualification in paragraph 8, which says that the CAA can do that only if the airline concerned has given its consent.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Shore indicated dissent.

Mr. Higgins: The Secretary of State shakes his head. That shows that this needs to be spelled out precisely. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would make clear the intention of paragraphs 7 and 8, read together.
Paragraph 8(b) and (c) says that British Airways or British Caledonian respectively shall have to agree to the CAA authorising another carrier. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that that will apply only if consent is not unreasonably withheld. I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but it would help if it could be stated without qualification that that amounts in effect to part of the guidance which we have to consider.

Mr. Marten: The only danger about leaving it to the Under-Secretary to answer when he replies is that there may be an awful row at the time so that he never gets round to it. Therefore, it is most important that we should have the Secretary of State's view now. Will my hon. Friend ask the right hon. Gentleman—who clearly took on board the


point he was making, because he was nodding—to intervene to clarify the matter?

Mr. Shore: I am always anxious to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I recently wrote him a letter in which I hoped I had dealt with the matter. Paragraph 8 does not seek to add to the restraints in paragraph 7. On the contrary, what is in paragraph 8 is additional to the exceptions allowed for and the criteria in paragraph 7.

Mr. Higgins: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I hope that those exchanges do not come out of the time allowed for my speech. Perhaps I may still ask the Under-Secretary to make clear that it is subject to the consent not being unreasonably withheld by other airlines. I am sure that that is his intention and the intention of the airlines, but we should like to see it clearly stated in Hansard.
I have many remarks to make about IATA and the fare structure, but I shall curtail them. The fare structure comes up, rather like the grin on the face of the Cheshire Cat, in a number of parts of the White Paper. The review has not carried out any comprehensive assessment of the present fare structure or the way in which IATA and other fares are decided. I believe that such a review is long overdue. I think I quote correctly the noble Lord who is Chairman of the CAA when I say that he has suggested that IATA should be abolished. From the Press reports of the past few days, there is no doubt that there is great confusion about the new fares. I understand that IATA still does not take account of charter rates, which are sometimes regulated and sometimes not—at all events, not by IATA. There may be a strong case for looking at the whole question, not least the unanimity rule, which sometimes does not produce a satisfactory outcome. I hope that we may have an assurance from the Secretary of State on another occasion, if not today, that he will examine that question, which has been left out of the review entirely.
Although I should like to say something now about Concorde, we have all expressed our views recently and there can be no doubt about the importance which hon. Members on both sides of

the House attach to its being allowed to fly on the experimental basis suggested recently by the United States Secretary of Commerce. We very much hope that that can happen, because it is only if those experiments are carried out that people in the United States can provide a fair view on the noise question.
I turn to Skytrain, with which I wish to deal in some detail, because the arguments are complex. I said at the beginning that the essential weakness of the Secretary of State's case was that on the one hand he argues that Skytrain offers consumers nothing significantly better than is now on offer and on the other hand he says that it will be so successful, because passengers want it, that it will have a traumatic effect on its competitors. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Our position is clearly set out in our motion. Essentially we support the opinion of the CAA on this issue, which means that the question of timing remains open. The Secretary of State thought that no one would wish to argue that Skytrain should commence immediately in present economic circumstances. That is probably the right position for us to take at present. The market is still very depressed. The CAA view, which the Secretary of State fairly reported to the House in his statement on 11th February, is that both the designation and the actual licence for Skytrain should remain in being. I believe that the CAA is right. That designation and that licence should stand, and in due course Laker Airways should be given the chance to prove in the market place that their product is different and is preferred by potential passengers.
The Secretary of State said that the whole position was very different from that in 1972. There are APEX fares, ABC fares and so on which are much lower than the fares on scheduled services in 1972. It is rather like that ghastly-Post Office advertisement saying that it is cheaper to 'phone after 6 o'clock and at weekends. When we consider the matter, we need to bear in mind the alternatives to Skytrain.
There are several important points to be made. First, Skytrain offers a single fare, and therefore the normal limitations which many people find onerous—that


they shall stay for not less or not longer than a certain time—do not apply. Secondly, no advance booking is required. Thirdly, one therefore does not pay a cancellation fee, as one does on some of the advance booking charters. Those matters, as well as the level of fares, need to be taken into account.
The fact is that the proposed Skytrain fares are substantially lower than the economy fares, so-called. I do not have time to give all the detailed comparisons, but let us consider the normal single fare for a scheduled economy flight or on ABC or APEX. Although there are certain periods when they are roughly in line, or perhaps Skytrain is dearer, there is no doubt that for considerable periods, particularly on the terms I have mentioned, Skytrain fares compare very favourably. Consumers should be given a choice. I believe that the Skytrain fares would be found to be competitive.
I must deal with the other objections which the Secretary of State raised. They are, first, the balance of payments effect; secondly, the matter mentioned in the White Paper, that Skytrain would wreck the present rationalisation agreements on the North Atlantic run; and thirdly, the loss to British Airways. The right hon. Gentleman said, wisely, that he would not set much store by the calculations and assessments he placed in the Vote Office today, give or take £10 million either way. Even as an economist I might make it a little tighter than £10 million either way. I agree with his original statement on 11th February that the effect on the balance of payments was likely to be minimal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asked for the figures and was told last Monday that they would be put in the Library. The Government must have had them for many months. I see no reason why they should be suddenly produced the night before this debate, so that Laker had no chance to make detailed comments to hon. Members on the proposals.

Mr. Shore: The figures were in response to a specific request by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I thought I was helping the House by making sure that the figures were available before the debate took place.

Mr. Higgins: The Minister certainly made the figures available before the debate took place—they were available last night. In my view, we had only a short time to get outside reaction to the figures. My hon. Friend tabled his Question last Monday. Therefore, I see no reason why the Secretary of State could not have provided the figures earlier. However, I do not want to take up time on this procedural matter.
There are no fewer than 16 assumptions in the document. A great many of those assumptions are open to an immense amount of dispute. I do not accept the Secretary of State's view that there is bound to be a corresponding American Skytrain moving in the other direction. There are a great many cartels where an interloper cuts rates but where no one else feels bound to match those rates. I do not accept the doubling-up argument.
I find myself in disagreement with approximately half the total number of assumptions contained in the document. I think that the Opposition can agree with the Secretary of State's comment that £10 million or £5 million either way would have no significant effect on the balance of payments.
The Secretary of State also referred to the wrecking of the rationalisation agreements on the North Atlantic run. That matter is referred to in paragraph 6 of the White Paper. Although one can see an argument for rationalisation in respect of resources and the airlines, it is difficult to understand how it would have a favourable effect on passengers. It is also said that fares would be substantially higher without the rationalisation. What is crucial is that the Secretary of State has apparently been engaging in an arrangement with the airlines and with the United States authorities. As far as I am aware—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the House has at no stage debated this matter, and the merits, advantages or disadvantages of this particular arrangement have not been analysed. This may have been justifiable during the oil crisis of 1974 but I am doubtful whether it is necessarily true of the future.
Many of the Secretary of State's figures are based on the Laker figures in connection with the 1974 overall picture.


In my view, that is not the relevant comparison to make when trying to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that there would be substantial losses to British Airways. Indeed, in the White Paper a specific figure is quoted at the bottom of page 4 where it states that
Her Majesty's Government estimate that BA"—
that is, British Airways—
would incur losses of about £6 million a year if the Laker Skytrain and one corresponding US service were to be operated.
I believe that if any hon. Member present were asked what was meant by the expression "would incur losses", he would assume that it meant losses as opposed to profits. I do not believe that there is any other meaning of those words when they are unqualified. If it is said that British Airways will incur "about £6 million losses", it is assumed that they will incur £6 million worth of losses as opposed to £6 million worth of profits. I understand that this particular matter has been taken up by Laker Airways with the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State has given a reply. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was asked for a definition of the £6 million losses and in effect he replied "There is no mystery about the £6 million losses. I understand that they are actually gross revenue".
Apart from the assumptions which I have already disputed, I believe that the passage which indicates that British Airways would incur losses of about £6 million is most misleading. The Secretary of State has still not corrected that passage. He says that it is a loss of gross revenue and not a loss of profit. Therefore, the House has been given a deceptive impression about this matter. It is most unfortunate, and I hope that the Minister will feel it appropriate to apologise to the House at the conclusion of the debate.
In those circumstances, I do not believe it right to oppose the Secretary of State's motion on the guidance. I think that the arrangements which have been made on a number of points are reasonably satisfactory. However, on the main issue which I have raised I hope that the House will take the view that the arguments which I have put forward are convinc-

ing and that it is right to support the CAA's view that the designation and the licensing of Skytrain should remain in being. Although leaving open the question of actual timing, I hope that the House will feel it right to countermand the Secretary of State's decision on this particular issue. I hope that at the appropriate time we can move our motion and that the House will feel it right to support us.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: First of all I should like to apologise to the House for the condition of my throat. Unfortunately, the dulcet cadences which the House has come to associate with my voice are now more like an antipodean growl. I am sure that most of those who have had the opportunity to hear the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will have little doubt on one score, namely, the very fair-minded way in which he has done his best by these guidelines to produce a period of peace and stability within British civil aviation the like of which it has hardly ever known throughout its now lengthy history. Indeed, whatever one's criticism of individual items in the Secretary of State's dish, even his most ferocious critic must admit that the present proposals should produce a high degree of stability in the industry.
At a time when all sorts of storm signals have been operating, and when there have been predictions of a rough time for the industry, my right hon. Friend seems to have produced out of the hat an answer which, according to my researches, is reasonably acceptable and satisfactory to both sides—that is, to British Caledonian and British Airways. Of course, it is always possible that one or other of the sides in this argument has seriously under-estimated its position and that the limited approval it now gives to the Secretary of State's proposals will be replaced in due course by bitter self-recrimination. However, I do not believe that to be so. In my view the present proposals, though a compromise that is rather too heavily weighted towards private enterprise for my taste, will in the event prove workable and will in these uncertain times result in the retention in employment of many thousands of British Caledonian workers,


many with high and scarce skills of the type that Britain will certainly need in the years ahead.
I turn to the vexed question why my right hon. Friend has set out before us a resolution of a long-standing difficulty which appears to fly in the face of election undertakings given previously by a Labour Government.
Perhaps I may digress a little on the events which produced that difficulty. In the latter part of 1969, as a result of the severe financial and other difficulties facing British United Airways, merger talks took place between BOAC and BUA which reached provisional agreement and required only the agreement of the then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), to become operative. For reasons best known to himself he refused his agreement and thereby, in the belief of many of us, opened the way for the establishment of a major independent airline operator—nowadays known as BCAL—in direct competition with the then two major State airlines, BEA and BOAC.
My right hon. Friend's reasons for so doing were in large part concerned with the recommendations in the Edwards Report that henceforward double designation—with two British airlines competing not only with other airlines but with each other over the same route—was now to be the order of the day. On the strength of this my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley was prepared to encourage the survival and growth of BCAL, and in so doing he delivered a blow of such weight that the aviation business is still suffering from it.
Double designation was always a nonsense, and subsequent events have amply confirmed the antagonistic views expressed by, amongst others, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), in opposition to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley.
Not the least of the achievements by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Trade is that he has recognised the double designation argument for the fraud it always was. Despite that, he has managed, it would seem, to save something from the ashes in the

shape of a formula which, on the gloomiest view, has a good even-money chance of proving sufficiently viable over the next few years at least to avoid the massive redundancies—I would put them at about 20,000—which would attend the total collapse of British Caledonian.
The price that my right hon. Friend will have to pay is that he has, on the face of it, had to renege on an undertaking given by Labour when in Opposition that the "stolen" routes handed over to British Caledonian by the new Tory Government to help the airline on its way would be returned to the State airlines, now British Airways, without compensation. The great majority of my constituents who work at London Airport believe that the routes were stolen, and neither my right hon. Friend nor I will have an easy job in persuading our airline colleagues over the alternative method he has proposed in these guidelines. However, the fact that he has effectively rejected double designation permanently and has evolved a future formula of operation that will avoid massive unemployment will serve him in good stead when, as he has promised me, he comes to meet the London Airport shop stewards in a week or two.
I should like to pay a small tribute to my right hon. Friend. For my sins, as a member of a trade union national executive and also as Chairman of the Parlimentary Labour Party Aviation Group, I have had a fair amount to do with aviation matters and Ministers. The thing that distinguishes my right hon. Friend from most of the others is the impressive humility—nearly always the prelude to a deeper understanding—which he brings to the problems of the industry and the people who have given their lives to it. It is a complex job, and the attitude displayed by my right hon. Friend augurs well for his continued success as the Minister most involved in it. If my experience in the aviation world is anything to go by he will find that a combination of consultation and honesty—much along the present lines—will pay off handsomely in the future. As part of the industrial elite force in the nation, the aviation worker has no trouble recognising frauds and "phoneys", but he is big enough to accept that changed circumstances can force even a good Minister to change his mind.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I agree with him that for the time being it would have been a criminally perverse decision to approve Skytrain and thus to have spat in the face of our national flag carriers. Even that ignores the virtual certainty of an application by the Americans to operate a similar "no-frills" service out of the United States. Nevertheless, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not allow the idea to be buried for ever. There still is a need to bring civil aviation within the reach of the masses. Its long-term future is bound up with that. It still is the case that flying in Europe costs roughly twice as much as flying in my native Australia—and that is not a statistic that I can ever view with any sort of equanimity, so long as I have anything to do with aviation in this country.
Therefore, one of the Secretary of State's own acknowledged duties should be to resist any complacency on the part of the airlines, to seek always better and cheaper flying for the mass of the people for whom flying could be—but is not yet—an unimaginable boon. Whatever reservations one may have about the guidelines, they represent a good start by the Minister whose hand is currently on the tiller.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: In July 1975 the Secretary of State threw away the rights of this country to operate services into New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto, Chicago, Bahrein and Singapore, when he announced that dual designation would stop. At no time did he seek to negotiate with the airlines of those countries, or their Governments, on the capacity limitation they would expect in return for throwing away those rights, which were worth money. We are not a rich nation. We cannot afford to throw away rights that we have fought so hard to win. We are faced with capacity limitations. An agreement between Pan-American, TWA and British Airways runs out in March. There is no forward programme in the White Paper to cover that, and there has been no declaration of what is to happen on the North Atlantic, in terms of capacity. We are told that no United Kingdom dual designation is to be allowed. It would, we are told,

disrupt the long-term planning of BCAL. The Secretary of State has ignored the advice of Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who says that it is a good thing. In ignoring that advice he has ignored the fact that certain countries have rights to carry passengers out of Heathrow to New York. Yet he has done nothing to negotiate them out of the scene, while restricting British airlines. The countries to which I refer are Belgium, Burma, Denmark, Japan, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany. None of them has been approached to limit its capacity or rights to take on passengers in this country at the expense of British Airways or any other carrier.
What is dual designation? The ban on it has not been applied to the Americans. They are allowed to operate both Pan-American and TWA into this country. Why did the Secretary of State not argue them out of the scene when Laker was taken out by the scruff of the neck? What about Air India, E1 A1 and, particularly, Aeroflot? The iron birds can carry people out of this country. May the iron lady soon rule.
Seven airlines and 10 countries are allowed to operate out of Heathrow, but Laker and BCAL are not. When the Secretary of State says that Skytrain would have to wait at least 12 months he is in accord with what Laker has said. It does not want to start its service before the summer of 1977, but while that is happening what is going on in the world outside the Department of Trade? What is happening in the real world, where the professionals of airline operations live and work? Last night at the Royal Aeronautical Society, Mr. Robert Whitby, the planning co-ordinator of British Airways—just the sort of person who would be affected by Skytrain—said that the North Atlantic growth rate for scheduled passenger traffic would be 6½ per cent. per annum over the next five years. We are half way back to the original growth rate predicted by British Airways and the undertaking which said that it would not be affected by the Laker Skytrain. It even took advertising space in the national Press to say that it would not be affected.
What is the phrase "dual designation"? It has existed in passenger terms since 1952. When I was in BOAC I flew on one of the first tourist-class flights


to East Africa. That was dual designation. First-class passengers were at the front and tourist-class passengers were at the back. Economy flights were introduced at a later stage. British Airways now operates umpteen classes of designation. There is Concorde first class, and good luck to it. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) and I have ridden in Concorde to Rio and Bahrain and back. There is 747 first class and 747 economy. There is advance booking in many different forms, and charter. There are five general classifications. The phrase "dual designation" is nonsense in itself.
This afternoon I shall talk only about Skytrain. I am a signatory to a motion that has now been signed by 200 hon. Members from both sides of the House. The Secretary of State said that his little red book reviews in a somewhat more sober way the statement made about Skytrain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, where have all the facts been? Why could not we be given them before last night?
In the little red book it is said that British Airways would suffer a loss of revenue of at least £6 million per annum. I have already said that British Airways has argued that it would not lose anything. Incidentally, £6 million happens to be a doubling of the figure that was first claimed. The argument supposes that there will be Skytrains, but the Americans have never made application.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): Is the hon. Gentleman unaware that a number of American airlines—the major carriers and the supplementary carriers—have indicated that if the licence were to become operative they would instantly wish to operate a Skytrain?

Mr. Warren: I am not aware of that. In the four years since the licence was granted none has applied for it.
The document that was put before us last night is a scandal. It is a misrepresentation of a brave man's endeavours, enterprise and devotion to his country. Not only is it a misrepresentation; it is a danger to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. There is good cause to examine the restriction that he is seeking to apply to the Laker Sky-

train, it having been granted a licence to operate under the terms of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. I do not know whether Mr. Laker intends to take legal action against the Government, but if not, he has good reason, along with the 300 members of Laker Airways who marched to the House today and who are now trying to lobby Labour Members, to ask what the ombudsman thinks about the matter. It is not good enough that these people should be turned away because they do not fit in with some political dogma that has been expounded rather hurriedly.
On reading the little red book it seems that it does not matter what Fred says. He may fly aircraft at a profit, but the right hon. Gentleman's advisers can beat him on paper calculations, especially when they will not show him their calculations. What have they been allowed to show Mr. Laker? There has been some rather acrimonious correspondence between the Secretary of State and Mr. Laker. I am sure that we all agree that Mr. Laker has not had any answers to the questionnaire which he submitted. His letter of 16th February reads:
Your Department has steadfastly and deliberately set out to ensure there could be no further serious consideration of the Skytrain licence…this delaying process continued until 12th December.
A meeting was then held where the adviser concerned was
unable to discuss the papers we had previously submitted, although he did undertake to have them studied fully so that further discussions could take place…".
When further discussions took place with the Under-Secretary of State it was Mr. Laker's opinion that the hon. Gentleman was surprised to hear it confirmed that the papers on balance of payments and other matters had still to be discussed with his own officials. That is not good enough. A man should not have to wait six months to have discussions with officials who are trying to take away not only his livelihood but the livelihoods of all those employed by him at Gatwick or Stansted.
In another guise, I happen to be a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Transport. I must say that the little red book would not qualify for even studentship examination. Certain assumptions are made in the little red book. I hate to dispute this matter with


my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, but there are 53 separate assumptions on which the right hon. Gentleman's case is based, not 16. For example it is said that the loss of revenue must be doubled. When I said that there have been no other applications, no one rose to deny that statement. Why must the figure be doubled? British Airways has not asked for it to be doubled.
Assumption after assumption appears throughout the document. The little red book does not qualify for serious examination by the House. It is said that it must be questioned whether the United States authorities would accept a Laker and United States Skytrain combined. What is the purpose of such a statement, when there is no application from the United States? The best one of the lot is that which I have described as assumption No. 41—an assumption that sums up the whole document. The section reads:
The actual reaction of other carriers is so speculative that for the purpose of this paper it has been assumed that all the other carriers would remain passive.
What is the purpose of this document? In the end it comes to the conclusion that nothing else will happen.
This is a glaring example of a man who has had an idea that has been rejected. Why should people from Britain, the United States or anywhere else not be able to choose whether to fly with Mr. Laker? Why should they not fly with him? Have they no right to a new enterprise of this sort? Throughout the little red book it is made clear that the Government are worried about the way in which others might operate. I suppose they might reduce their fares—but is not that what the whole process of air transportation has been about? Has it not been intended to bring air travel to more and more people? Have we not been attempting to make it available to ordinary men and women—namely, students, housewives, business men, and even my mother-in-law? They all have a right to travel in the cheapest possible manner. Why should we restrict people, including my mother in-law? Why should they not travel as they wish and when they wish?

Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend's mother in-law could have a one-way ticket.

Mr. Warren: I am willing to pay for her to travel both ways if she is able to fly with Mr. Laker. Perhaps I should add that she is not in the Gallery.
An argument has been deployed by the right hon. Gentleman that has created a bad policy that is totally unfounded on fact. Let the House and the British people be rid of this nonsense.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I think that the whole House will agree that the presentation of the White Paper has a useful immediate gain in ending almost two years of uncertainty for the airlines. They will now be able to plan ahead and shape their development, in the knowledge that matters will remain as they are for a reasonable span. Whatever one's point of view, I assume that all hon. Members will agree that they should be settled for a considerable time ahead.
I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he wants British Caledonian to continue as a scheduled carrier so as to retain a second centre of airline expertise in the United Kingdom, thus making more secure the jobs of a substantial number of British Caledonian workers.
These are worthy objectives. It is essential that competition with British Airways should exist. One wonders what the service might have been over the years without competition. I regard the current shuttle service as having diminished seriously in a period of five years. I have not time to go into all the complaints, but I believe that without competition the situation might be worse than it now is. It would be instructive to find out from British Airways the cost to the taxpayer of keeping standby aircraft available on every flight.
Paragraph 24 of the White Paper deals with Scottish services to the Highlands and Islands. These services were reduced last year, providing only one flight per day from Stornoway to Benbecula on the winter service. In other words, the normal service has been halved. The situation is now most inconvenient and will have serious consequences for passengers, mail and newspapers. I do not think the Secretary of State should


permit British Airways to slide out of its obligation to maintain a reasonable service to the Highlands and Islands. Incidentally, the fare from Stornoway to Glasgow is only £1 cheaper than the fare from Glasgow to London, almost double the distance. If there is any question of subsidy, it is a question of who is subsidising whom.
An omission from the document that will cause great resentment in Scotland is the lack of reference to the resumption of direct flights from Scottish airports to foreign destinations. Certainly a Scottish Government would reverse this policy, but in the meantime there is no justification for continuing the present policy which discriminates against flights from Scottish airports.
I do not have any serious opposition to the way in which the cake has been cut between the two airlines. However, experience of airlines in France and Canada, where the second airline carries over twice the share of the State airline, against British Caledonian's share of 10 per cent., has worked very well. The Department should bear this matter in mind for the future, although I accept that at present the package is fixed.
No doubt British Airways and British Caledonian will not be entirely satisfied with the White Paper but, given the situation in which the Secretary of State had to shape his policy, the White Paper proposals have emerged as as fair and rational a division of routes and planning as could be expected—which is what we would have expected from the Secretary of State.
The main objective now is to proceed with all speed on the follow-through. We must now stop pulling up the plant by the roots to see how it is growing. The Secretary of State calls on the authority to develop consultative arrangements. This is highly desirable, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman should take an active part in bringing the parties together to this end.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has already referred to some loose wording in the White Paper, but on page 9 of the guidance there are some clear words. The White Paper asks the Authority to

encourage the provision of profitable services by British airlines that will foster the development of the United Kingdom's trade and tourism and strengthen the balance of payments".
In paragraph 2, on page 9, the White Paper says:
The Authority should seek to ensure that the scale and character of the operations of British airlines are within their skills and resources".
We can all applaud those words, but they are inconsistent with the decision given by the Minister in paragraph 15, on page 5. There is no justification, either in the White Paper, in paragraph 14, or in the Secretary of State's words this afternoon, for the reversal of the Government's view about the operation of Skytrain. Along with the 200 other hon. Members who have signed the motion on this topic, I have grave misgivings about the decicision of the Secretary of State to decide, without proper information—information which he has not yet given to the House—to withdraw this licence.
It is worth reminding the House of the original terms on which the licence was granted by the Civil Aviation Authority. In 1972 the decision was given in a report which I now have before me. That report says:
Laker proposed to meet this demand by providing a 'no frills' economy class of service with no advance booking facilities and on which meals and drinks had to be paid for by the passenger as extras.…They expected such a service to operate at a high load factor".
The CAA went on to give as a reason for its decision to allow the application the requirement to satisfy public need. The CAA said:
We accept the contention of the applications that there is a substantial demand for cheap 'no frills', short-notice mass travel which is not at present adequately catered for. We welcome their enterprise in seeking to meet this demand and we view with favour the innovation involved in this application. We are not, however, convinced that all the traffic would be new traffic and we deal below with the question of diversion.
There then follows a long series of paragraphs on that score.
The situation on the question of principle has not changed since that time. There has been a trend on the North Atlantic route towards lower load factors, but that was taken into account last year when British Airways opposed the granting of the "Skytrain" permission by the CAA in January of last


year. All the arguments which we are now asked to consider were ventilated on that occasion, but the CAA confirmed its decision that Laker Airways should continue to have the licence—although, as the Secretary of State said, it did not think that it could be brought into operation at an early date. However, nothing the Secretary of State said this afternoon justifies the decision to overrule a decision taken by the CAA only last year. All the factors we are now asked to consider applied then. It is deplorable for the Secretary of State to overturn a verdict of the CAA, which went into this matter very much more closely than he could have done.
I agree that there is a certain amount of prejudice in this matter, which I very much deplore. I thought that prejudice came out in the Secretary of State's speech when he made some trivial and almost offensive remarks about Mr. Laker and the way in which he conducted his business. The Secretary of State gave the impression that the DC10 aircraft were acquired rather recklessly. Laker Airways were given permission to put on those flights. That permission was granted by the CAA. One surely expected that the full resources of the British Government would be put behind that decision to enable United States permission to be obtained.
We can see how ridiculous that allegation is when viewed against the Concorde situation. Concorde was conceived and built at a cost of £1,000 million, without any landing rights having been obtained on the main routes. The Secretary of State is now involved in a great tussle to try to find somewhere for Concorde to land. The whole matter has been developed without any permission having been granted. It does not become the Secretary of State or any other member of the Government to attack Mr. Laker for acquiring aircraft after he had obtained initial permission, when we all know that Concorde was developed with no indication that permissions would be granted.
The CAA, in its decision last year, said that the development was held up partly because of United States opposition. It is very sad that the United Kingdom Government have not given more support to the attempts to obtain the permission that

the United States should have given a long time ago. Despite all the problems and objections raised by British Airways, the CAA said last year:
In sum, notwithstanding the weighty and well argued case advanced by British Airways, we conclude…that it would be wrong to revoke licence 1B/24214 and we decide accordingly".
It pointed out that this concept could meet a real public need and that British Airways had forecast, on the optimistic side, that there would be a growth in 1975. We know there is quite a subtantial growth to be expected on the North Atlantic routes and, within a year or so, it might be perfectly proper and sensible for a no-frills service like Sky-train to be inaugurated.
For the Secretary of State to turn down that project without justifying his decision to the House is a deplorable breach of faith and should be condemned. It is ridiculous for him to talk about 1·1 million seats on the North Atlantic routes as though they would be threatened by Skytrain. He is completely ignoring the potential of the 200 million people in the United States and the United Kingdom. The figure of 1·1 million is less than ½per cent. of that potential. He should look at the traffic generated within the vast area of the United States by a policy of frequent services and comparatively cheap fares. He would see the potential for transatlantic flights if air fares were reduced. I am sorry that he has ignored it. I regret that, although the CAA was set up to analyse all the problems involved in the regulation of civil air transport, and to hear appeals from interested parties, its decision has been thrown aside. In view of the lack of information from the Secretary of State, I shall vote for the amendment unless, in his winding-up speech, the Under-Secretary gives an explanation for this extraordinary decision.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I start by declaring a slightly remote interest as parliamentary adviser to the Guild of Business Travel Agents.
I am pleased that we are at last discussing a new order for civil aviation. For far too long, decisions by airlines have been subject to political considerations. I am sure the House will agree that freeing airlines from the necessity to look


over their shoulders and wonder which way the political cat would jump must be greatly to their advantage in planning for the future.
There is quite sufficient competition from foreign airlines. We do not need undue interference by the Governments or wrangling within the British aviation industry. I welcome the White Paper, which at least reaches decisions, even though some of them may be controversial. The Secretary of State will become extremely embarrassed if he continues to receive tributes from this side of the House, but I pay him another tribute, because the policy he has outlined is as night to day when compared with the proposals for civil aviation policy in the Labour Party manifesto. It must have taken some political courage to fly in the face of pressures which no doubt came from hon. Members sitting behind him.
Seen in the setting of international competition, the Secretary of State's decision to end dual designation is broadly right. Against the backcloth of the success so far achieved by British Caledonian, the Secretary of State was right to give it a permanent place in the sun.
This debate must be conducted bearing in mind three factors—strong international competition, the continuing recession in air travel, despite some optimistic forecasts, and the acceptance within British aviation of a major private operator. The three main interests involved are British Caledonian, British Airways and Laker.
British Caledonian has had a very fair deal from the Secretary of State. It has been given quite enough scope, as well as undisputed spheres of influence, which can only benefit the airline's executives in their planning. There is just one quibble, with which I hope the Minister will deal in winding up. I understand the separation of East Africa and the Seychelles, the absorption of Lusaka into the BCAL network, and the logic of expanding the South American area with BCAL flying to Lima, Caracas and Bogota, but why has one destination on the American mainland—Georgetown—been retained in British Airways' sphere of influence? There may be a simple explanation. I hope the Minister can tell us the reason.
The Government's change of position on the Houston/Atlanta routes gives BCAL its major opportunity. However, I express concern, which BCAL may echo, at the Secretary of State's reply to an intervention, which seemed to indicate that he was less than positive on the pace at which the Government would pursue negotiations with the American authorities to enable BCAL to start operating the new routes as soon as possible.
Perhaps unusually from these Benches, I want to say some kind words about British Airways. I hope the airline does not take too much to heart the implication, which must sometimes be drawn from our remarks, that we are not well disposed to it simply because it is a nationalised industry. I believe the British Airways' management is the best it has had for a long time, and of all the nationalised industries with which I have come into contact, British Airways have the most commercial approach. This may be because there is a major element of competition, but it would be unfair to allow the debate to pass without some comment on the airline's high standard of efficiency and management. I have travelled fairly widely on British Airways and the airline does us credit in many parts of the world.
British Airways cannot have enjoyed losing routes, either now or in 1971. Yet, in the words of their statement, they are prepared to live with it. Why should they not have been prepared to live with Laker? I warn my hon. Friends that the remarks I shall make from here onwards will be less eulogistic of the Laker Airways Skytrain than those made by some of my hon. Friends have been. I am as much an admirer of Mr. Laker and his forthright approach to free enterprise as anyone, and I go along with the motion in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends that a complete cancellation of the Skytrain licence was neither necessary nor desirable, but suspension could have met the immediate difficulties seen by the Secretary of State without its being necessary to say that the Laker Skytrain idea was dead for all time.
I am not opposed to the decision taken by the Secretary of State on Skytrain. We are underestimating the enormous amount


of international competition on the North Atlantic routes. We are perhaps forgetting that there are other ways of getting to the United States fairly cheaply—ways that did not exist a few years ago. I instance ABC as one example. British Airways and British Caledonian have not been slow to react to these opportunities. Although there is potentially a large market for cheap travel to the United States, to some extent it has already been supplied by the enterprise of British Caledonian and British Airways. The time for Skytrain will come, but it is not yet.
If any of my hon. Friends asks why we should not give Mr. Laker a chance to see what he can do with Skytrain, I can do no better than remind them that the travel trade is strewn with the corpses of people who have said that, and the consumer has not always been the beneficiary. It is right that the Skytrain concept should be put in perspective.
In summary, I am delighted to welcome British Caledonian as a permanent and accepted entity into British civil aviation and look forward to a prosperous and profitable future for it, I congratulate British Airways on flying the flag most successfully round the world, and I am confident that Laker's day will come, but not yet.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I am chary about speaking in aviation debates. Each time I do so the Roger Bacon column in Flight accuses me of having written another book, and all the airlines write and ask me for a copy. Two years ago, after my contribution to a debate, an insertion appeared in the Roger Bacon column to the effect that I had written a book telling airlines how to deal with abusive passengers. Subsequently I received requests from British Airways, British Caledonian and other international airlines asking urgently for a copy of the book. I had to reassure them that I had written no book.
After putting down two Questions to my right hon. Friend about civil aviation, it was alleged in the Roger Bacon column that I had written a book on how to build new airports. Once again, from all parts of the globe I had requests for an autographed copy of a book that I had not

written. The remarks I shall make tonight do not appear in any piece of literature to which I have contributed. Although I may have written on aviation matters in the past, I have not written a book about the subject that I shall raise tonight.
I welcome some elements of what my right hon. Friend said. He has made a valuable decision in ending dual designation, particularly on the North Atlantic. In enunciating his "spheres of influence policy" he has at last ended some of the conflicts and uncertainties which have prevented British Caledonian from taking the longer-term investment decisions it had to take, particularly on whether to go for wide-bodied equipment.
In his allocation of spheres of influence, my right hon. Friend has been motivated primarily by the need to preserve employment, which I hope will be welcomed on both sides of the House. However, I have doubts on some aspects of the policy statement about the future of civil aviation. I have always recognised that the creation of a second force in British civil aviation was an entirely political decision. It was a political decision that many of my hon. Friends did not welcome at the time. When the previous Labour Government issued their White Paper on civil aviation policy we were told by the then Minister of State that no combination of any two British independent carriers could come together under the conditions laid down in the White Paper and that, because the conditions could not be met, there was no chance of a second-force concept getting off the ground. Despite that assurance, British Caledonian came into being through the merger of Caledonian Airlines—a charter carrier—and British United Airways. Some of my hon. Friends at that time firmly resisted that policy and declared that they would do everything they could to make sure that the decision was reversed.
It became part of Labour Party policy that the routes which had been transferred by succeeding Tory Governments to keep British Caledonian going should be transferred back to British Airways without compensation. Having stood on many platforms throughout the country and argued in favour of transferring back those routes without compensation, my right hon. Friend is now making an


about-turn, although I recognise that he does so with the best of motives.
When British Caledonian was helped by the Conservatives the then Minister of State told the House that the transfer of routes from British Airways to British Caledonian was a once-for-all transfer and that there would be no more transfers from British Airways to British Caledonian. He also said that all that British Airways would lose was £6 million of route revenue.
In other words, we have a situation in which the aviation policies of both Governments seem to have been overturned, because they are not the policies that those Governments have enunciated in the past. I say that without any feeling of personal rancour, because I recognise that the Ministers concerned take these matters seriously and that they have come to a decision through very good motives. I also recognise that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) did not hold ministerial responsibility for this matter during the Conservative Government, but I ask them to recognise that their policy commitment also was to preserve British Airways as it stands and not to secure any more route transfers to British Caledonian.

Mr. Shore: What was agreed following discussions between the two airlines and myself was an exchange of routes, not a purloining of routes. The exchange is almost exact. British Airways gives up four points in South America and Zambia, while British Caledonian gives up four points in Africa and Asia. It is a balanced exchange.

Mr. Huckfield: I recognised that my right hon. Friend takes these matters very seriously, but many of us felt that British Airways had given away too much in the past and should not have been asked even to consider giving away any more routes in any circumstances. In their Civil Aviation Act, the Tory Government inserted the need to keep British Caledonian going. Many of us called that Act almost the "Preservation of British Caledonian Act". The Opposition are in a rather peculiar position in having written into their civil aviation legislation the need to keep a private enterprise independent carrier in existence against the nationalised carrier. I do not know

of any other circumstances in which a Government have written into legislation the provision that a nationalised industry must have a private enterprise carrier not only competing against it but given priority over it.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that when British Caledonian was originally set up assurances were given that the Tory Government did not preclude the granting of route rights, either in competition with British Airways or, indeed, to new destinations which were not at that time served by British Airways.

Mr. Huckfield: That is the point I was about to make. In the Tory Government's guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Authority was told that it not only had to keep British Caledonian going but had to give it priority on new routes. When a Government write into legislation the provision that a private enterprise organisation not only must compete against a nationalised industry but must be given priority over it, I wonder whose best interests that Government are seen to be looking after by the people.
What worries me is that in these route transfers, in all this carve-up of the world between the two airlines, until recently British Airways have always had to give way. What kind of successive Governments are they who are always chipping away at a nationalised industry in order to keep private enterprise going?
I recognise that my right hon. Friend has tried to arrange not just a transfer of routes but a balancing out. He has done it in a fairer, more precise and more equal way than hitherto, but many of us regret that in the past, in order to keep British Caledonian alive, British Airways have had to make the sacrifices, have had to lose the route revenue and have had to see a dent made in their profits. Nevertheless, although they have had to assume these burdens it is always the State carrier, British Airways, to which the Government go when they want to impose non-commercial obligations. I wonder whether, in future, we shall see British Caledonian having to carry some of the non-commercial obligations that are still imposed on British Airways. I am thinking not just of Concorde but of some of the destinations that British Airways more


or less have to serve on a strategic basis but would not wish to serve on a purely commercial basis.
My right hon. Friend has taken this decision with far better motives than lay behind the decisions in the past. The Government have deliberately created a permanent mixed economy in British civil aviation operations. That is a step forward which does not enthuse me, but, since it has been done, I hope that we shall not go as far, for example, as the French Government have done. They have literally given the Northern Hemisphere to Air France and the Southern Hemisphere to UTA. I hope that we shall not see such a parcelling out of the world between British Airways and British Caledonian. That is not the purpose of this new mixed economy. If we are to have such a mixed economy in civil aviation operations, I hope that in future British Caledonian will have to prove itself on its commercial ability.
In creating this policy of having two flag carriers, my right hon. Friend will, I hope, recognise that we shall become one of the few Western nations that have two flag carriers in this context. The United States may have Pan-Am and TWA, while France may have Air France and UTA. Nevertheless, we could be heading for a different set of negotiating problems, because we have two flag carriers and most European nations have only one.
In this mixed economy, if we are to have two competing air lines, we must ensure that British Airways does not accumulate a whole series of non-commercial or quasi-non-commercial operations. I am thinking, for example, of Australia where, theoretically, TAA and Ansett exist side by side, but it always seems to be the case that if any new legislative obligations are going TAA has to stick to them, because it is State-owned, while Ansett finds ways of making them a little more flexible. I hope that if, in future, we are to have new legislative or statutory obligations, particularly if they are of a non-commercial nature, they will be placed fairly and squarely on both British Airways and British Caledonian.
Finally, in creating this policy of having two flag carriers we should remember

that we have two different flag carriers, with two different operating bases.
At the moment, looking at the interchange points of the world, three of the most important in Western Europe are London, Paris and Frankfurt. I suppose we have to take Amsterdam into account as well. I wonder whether, by encouraging two separate operating bases, at both Heathrow and Gatwick, we shall in future get the number of aviation passengers coming through London that we used to have. When one considers Frankfurt's facilities, the very interesting new transfer facilities at the third Paris airport, and the facilities at Amsterdam, one wonders whether London, with its dual operation of Heathrow and Gatwick, will in future be the kind of place through which people will choose to travel.
I think that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing about Skytrain. There is already too much capacity on the North Atlantic. Having worked out a régime under which fares have more or less settled down to what the traffic will bear, I believe that the kind of instability that Skytrain would create would upset much of the delicate balance now achieved.
In saying this, I recognise that my right hon. Friend has taken an important step forward. I support his motives for taking the kind of step forward that he has taken because I recognise that these are some of the best motives that a Labour Government have had in civil aviation policy for a long time. But, though I recognise and support my right hon. Friend's motives, I am more than a little worried about some of the longer-term results that this policy has created.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I wish to make an unreservedly constituency point. I am alarmed at the unique and somewhat isolated emphasis in the White Paper, in paragraph 26 of Part I and paragraph 14 of Part II, on the Government's wish to promote the build-up of traffic and of scheduled services at Gatwick. I am concerned that this will be growth by stealth and that it will take place in a haphazard and ill-planned form, leading to the conversion of what is still a rural and beautiful part of the United Kingdom into a noisy concrete jungle.
I accept that Gatwick lies today within a major growth area, as designated in the South-East Strategy, but the West Sussex County Council has come to the conclusion that this is a mistake. It regrets that it ever agreed to that designation and it has emphasised that, while it accepts the natural growth of the families and firms already in our area, it does not accept the idea of many new firms moving into our area, with all the additional growth that that will bring. Also, around Gatwick, particularly to the south and the east, there are areas of outstanding natural beauty.
One of the heaviest clouds lying ahead of us is the consideration of the amount of growth that there will be at Gatwick over the next generation. The tables in the first part of the document "Airport Strategy for Great Britain", dealing with the London area, are most alarming. They show Gatwick traffic going up from around 5 million passengers last year to perhaps 16 million passengers—that is the high forecast—by 1981, and to 25 million by 1986 if a second terminal is built.
Naturally, those who live in and around Gatwick and south of there are most concerned at this prospect. We accept that wide-bodied aircraft will relatively diminish the noise problem, but this is not likely seriously to help until the 1990s. It certainly does not ease the burden for those who are already suffering from a noise problem and who are worried at the extent to which this will increase, according to the Government's plans, in the years ahead, and who are alarmed at the amount of countryside that must be lost if Gatwick grows as envisaged.
Of course there will be growth at Gatwick, but this should be planned growth, serving the needs of those who live within Gatwick's own traffic generating area. This, I submit, is south of London and the South-East counties only. This should be Gatwick's rôle.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—who, I know, wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Gatwick should not act as a dustbin for all the growth that Heathrow cannot take, nor should it take the growth that is not going to

the regional airports because these have not been fully developed.
On page 22 of the Airport Strategy document there is a table showing that in 1972 82 per cent. of passengers using the London area airports had origins or destinations within the South-East. But surely this is a chicken-and-egg argument. Until there are adequate airports at Manchester, Newcastle or Leeds, new companies will not go there. That in turn tends to concentrate the movements in and out of South-East England
There is a case in point in my own constituency. An international company recently moved its British head office to Burgess Hill. One of the reasons for this, I am informed by the company, was that in the specification given by the headquarters the new office was to be within 45 minutes of a major airport. If such a major airport had existed in the East Midlands, the North-East or the North-West, it could well have gone there.
There is a ratchet effect here. Once a certain level of passengers is reached at a regional airport, it encourages the airlines to put more scheduled flights in and out of that regional airport, and that in turn brings more passengers.
I accept that the plans for British Caledonian, outlined in the White Paper, give a reasonable prospect of viability to BCAL and of continuing employment. I am glad of that, but I cannot accept the White Paper as a whole because of its isolated emphasis on growth at Gatwick. This matter must be studied and, I hope, controlled in the context of a total airport strategy for airports throughout the United Kingdom. This we still have not received from the Government.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: It is regrettable that so much of the debate has been taken up on the Skytrain issue when the whole debate is about the future aviation policy of this country as set out in Cmnd 6400. The major issue facing us is what is best for Great Britain If we do not work out the best policy, I am sure that our competitors will laugh all the way to the bank and get a greater share of the market.
It is sufficient to say that if Skytrain—this is a valid argument which has been made—had been allowed to go ahead in


the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market in the next few years following the oil crisis, it would have been particularly damaging to British Airways. This point has been laboured quite enough in the debate. We have a capacity-sharing agreement with the Americans, and permission for Laker Airways to run Skytrain would have led to the Americans running one of their own. Chaos would have resulted, and the casualty would have been British Airways.
The adjustment of the existing routes network, which has been agreed in the White Paper, is in my view sensible, and I applaud the Secretary of State's decision in coming out strongly, as he has done, against dual designation. We cannot bolster British Caledonian at the expense of British Airways. British Caledonian should be well satisfied with the routes it has been allocated, and I believe that the Secretary of State is right at the moment not to seek to take it into public ownership, in view of the redundancies.
It is right that British Airways must have their fair share of the routes which were taken away from them. They are a publicly-owned national flag carrier and, as such, I believe that they must be protected by the Government. British Airways have a tremendous responsibility which they share with Air France in introducing the Concorde on to the world stage.
Some comments are made in the White Paper about Concorde, and I have a constituency interest in it. I hope the statement is correct that the operations of Concorde will be extended to fly to New York, Washington, Melbourne and Tokyo and that those routes will come to Britain, because they are the most lucrative routes.
The United States is seriously jeopardising the development and even the very existence of the Concorde project by the nonsense which is going on in New York about landing rights for Concorde at Kennedy Airport. Investment and the jobs of workers are being put seriously in jeopardy. I hope that there will be some breakdown of the market between the American and British carriers across the Atlantic, because this is very relevant to the debate.
It may be that it is time we took some action to protect our carriers against the action which is being taken by the Americans over Concorde, and, although I recognise and greatly welcome what is said in the White Paper, I ask for the continued vigilance of the Secretary of State in terms of the future of Concorde on which so many of our hopes depend.

6.11 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: As this is the first occasion on which I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, since you took up the Speakership, may I briefly but very sincerely offer you my felicitation?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Those are the best words in the debate.

Dr. Bennett: On the policy that we are debating today, I shall not surprise anyone if I say that I welcome the chance for a symbiosis between British Caledonian and British Airways rather than the obliteration of one by the other in the fashion of the film "Jaws". This at least is a matter for which we can be thankful, because it is possibly not in the manifesto of the party now in Government that this should happen. I for one welcome it. I do not doubt that there will be every chance for everyone to watch the relative efficiencies of the two companies in their operations and, therefore, that there will be every chance to show whether British Caledonian justifies the tolerance accorded to it.
However, I wish to make a few observations on the topic which appears to occupy us most in this debate, and that is the shameful withdrawal of the licence of Freddie Laker's Skytrain. The arguments have been rehearsed from all parts of the House and the documents have been referred to amply. I am sure that I am not being unfair if I say that every argument which has been adduced to justify the withdrawal of the licence seems shallow and not to be valid at all.
We have heard mention of £6 million losses to British Airways. However, if this is examined more closely we find that it appears to amount to £6 million reduced revenue, not losses on trading. As one who has had a share in some loss-making activities in this House, I speak with some feeling on this matter.
The interesting feature, however, is that British Airways do not seem to think that they will be expecting to lose money from this endeavour. The Secretary of State himself said that he could not say that there would not have been a firm prognostication of losses to the balance of payments if the licence had been granted. The commercial arguments and the financial arguments do not appear to be capable of being sustained from what has been put before us so far.
On the question of trading and passenger seats, we understand that the Laker Skytrain would produce 250,000 seats if a full load factor obtained. Against that, the seats normally offered annually by British Airways amount to 330,000. This, when compared with 250,000 of the Sky-train, looks like formidable competition, but surely it has been very much glossed over that with Pan American, TWA and the rest there are more than I million seats on the higher IATA fare structure from which some might be taken, but not necessarily off British Airways.
Certainly the cheapness of the new service is a matter which has not been given the serious consideration that it deserves. In the many years that I have been a Member of this House, I have heard the argument advanced again and again that proposals of this kind would only damage the existing services. It is always said that any cheaper services will damage the existing ones. It is never credited that they will be expected to bring their own new traffic, such as the mother-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) who otherwise might not choose to travel by a more expensive route.
The great gift which has been overlooked in this argument about Freddie Laker's Skytrain is that, unlike the ABC or APEX services which charge certainly no more than the Skytrain intended to charge off season, it was a very different matter at peak season when the ABC fare to New York would be £150, the APEX fare would be £176 and the Freddie Laker fare would still be £118. Surely it is in the high season that this would have generated the new traffic which we would like to see accruing to this country. Therefore, the arguments about capacity also fall to the ground.
I am left with the serious doubt that, by maintaining over-capacity and high-cost IATA-type routes, the arguments will not always be provided for cutting out low-cost services.
The pleading about the recession is justifiable on the evidence which has been printed. The same applies to the oil crisis. I found myself marooned in a distant part of the world when all the services of British Airways were suddenly removed because of the oil crisis. It was not a disagreeable part of the world, so I do not complain. But the oil crisis and the recession have done their damage. However, the evidence before us today indicates that that is now over and that traffic is increasing again. Therefore, I cannot feel that there are really sound arguments which justify this decision, which personally I resent. As a former psychiatrist, I can only attribute them to what we call rationalisation—that is, finding respectable arguments to justify conduct which is not altogether respectable.
I plead with the Government that they should not regard this as an irrevocable decision for all time. They should not close their mind for ever. If there is a sign of revival, it should be made possible for such services to be reinstituted, even if they do not help Mr. Laker financially.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I should declare at once that I have an interest in these matters as a British Airways pensioner, so, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), I too have considerable admiration and regard for British Airways and their predecessor corporations, especially the one for which I worked, British Overseas Airways.
I agreed very much with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) when he said it was a pity that we had to spend so much time on one aspect—that of the Laker Skytrain—in what was a very short debate about a large topic. It may be that that reflects what so many people outside this House often misunderstand—that we talk all the time about what we disagree about but that we seldom talk about what we agree about. This can give a wrong impression of the way things are here.
On what I see as the central issue—the relationship between British Caledonian and British Airways—the Secretary of State obviously felt that he had delivered a judgment of Solomon. At the end of this debate, however, we still seek assurance that the British Caledonian sphere of influence is now sufficiently large to ensure a margin of safety in the case of unforeseen circumstances. We acknowledge that that is a difficult judgment to make. It is a judgment that cannot be overruled by all the old neolithic chants that we heard last year, although not, I am happy to say, this year, about the manifesto and the taking back of the routes which have been stolen so unjustly from British Airways.
The Secretary of State has expressed his will that British Caledonian should succeed and his judgment that his guidelines will give it the means to do so. Our judgment is that he has cut the margins pretty fine—but he had to do so. However, we take him at his word that he now shares our objective, which is the continuing prosperity of an independent second-force scheduled flag carrier alongside the continuing prosperity of British Airways.
That is why we do not wish to divide the House against the whole of the new guidelines. Of course we have reservations about the guidance and of course we totally disagree with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has handled the Skytrain affair. However, we agree overwhelmingly that the industry needs a period of non-interference by politicians. In view of the progress that the Secretary of State has made towards our views and away from the primitivism of some of his hon. Friends, we should try to meet him at least half way and find some middle or common ground—whatever the current "in" expression is for this area—on which the air transport industry can find a firm footing for its battles with foreign competitors.
I should not have used the words which the Secretary of State uses in paragraph 12 of his guidelines where he says that he hopes that the guidance
should remain substantially unchanged for a considerable period of years.
I should have used words which suggested that the guidance should

remain unchanged until the market conditions changed significantly. No one can know whether that will be soon or way ahead in the future. However, that is not a matter on which we should come to blows.
The Secretary of State has been remiss, to put it gently, in failing to give a lead on fares policies. I put it gently because there is some guidance in paragraph 16 of the guidelines. There the Secretary of State enjoins the Authority to seek
to secure tariff provisions and associated conditions that are rational, simple and enforceable.
A clearer description of the Skytrain fare proposal could hardly have been written, and a more different prescription from the witch's brew of the present IATA carrier Atlantic fares would be difficult to find.
The snag is that, although the Secretary of State has directed himself correctly in paragraph 16 of his guidance, he has promptly shot off in the opposite direction. The hon. Member for Felt-ham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) may have come close to the issue when he said that one of the problems was that fares are twice as high in Europe as they are in his native Australia. A cynic might say that that could be because the hon. Gentleman is here instead of in his native Australia and that his activities have had something to do with that. It is certainly true that fares here are very much higher than they are in the United States. However, I shall not pursue the hon. Gentleman's argument too far, particularly when he is not present. I understand that he is almost certainly attending a Standing Committee upstairs.
In nailing his colours to the mast of the policy of two flag carriers, although, unwisely, the Secretary of State has ruled out direct competition between them, he has shown a good deal of courage and common sense. As we all know, there are moments when one needs a great deal of courage to show common sense in politics. The right hon. Gentleman has written the recipe which he thinks is right for the occasion in his guidelines, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the flavour turns out to be not according to the menu, is the right hon. Gentleman committed to adding a little more sugar or to changing the mix until it


comes out right? I do not want to discomfort him by asking. The recipe which he has laid down is a mixture of politics and economics, and that is always a pretty dangerous and unstable brew.
If that is added to aviation, which is a pretty unstable industry at times, the right hon. Gentleman could easily find that he has to change the recipe a little. It might not come out right. A revolution or a natural disaster—apart from the victory of a Socialist Party in any one of the countries involved—something totally outside the control of the airlines of Her Majesty's Government—again, it is hard to know what is within the control of Her Majesty's Government these days—could change the whole picture.
Is paragraph 6, the commitment to the policy of two scheduled international carriers, the heart of the policy to which the Secretary of State is now committed? Are paragraphs 7 to 10 and Annex A merely the means to the end or are paragraphs 7 to 10 written on tablets of stone, even if they thwart the intent of paragraph 6? Indeed, is paragraph 12 a paragraph of real significance, or is it a mere throw-away form of words when it says:
the Authority should, when circumstances warrant, examine with the British airlines concerned the scope for adjusting, exchanging or reallocating routes"?
Is that simply a form of words—a throw-away—or does it have real significance along with paragraphs 7 to 12?
The Secretary of State said that he wanted to turn the competition of British carriers against foreign carriers. He makes it difficult for us to believe him at times because he implies that the shares of the North Atlantic market are fixed between British and American carriers. What sort of competition is it that he will turn on the American carriers on that route if the shares are already fixed? We are not sure that we understand him on that matter.
I turn to some of the sins of omission of the Secretary of State. He claims to know better than the Civil Aviation Authority how to run aviation policy, otherwise he would not have overridden the Authority on the Laker Skytrain affair. Will he define his attitude towards the present fares structure and indicate what he wants done to improve it, if he is to

take a lead in these matters? Will he tell us what policy he wants adopted towards the development of third-level services outside the favoured—indeed, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), the pampered—Scottish Highlands and Islands? They are in this respect rightly pampered, but none the less pampered.
Is the Secretary of State pursuing policies within the EEC that would allow services akin to those operated in the United States under FAR 298 to prosper, or is he content to allow the increasing French penetration of this particular market to continue? The Minister may think that these matters are small beer. They are little aeroplanes, they do not carry many people and they are not very significant. I hope that the Minister and all hon. Members have noticed how the old arthritic giants of air transport—for example, Pan American World Airways, and TWA—are now being led in the competitive race by the United States regional carriers such as Eastern and National, which are themselves being pushed hard by the competition coming from below by airlines such as Pacific Southwest Airlines and other third-level operators. If we are to achieve growth and keep our own large carriers as spritely as they should be, we need to engender that growth right the way down to the third level.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about non-scheduled freight services. The preference given to British Airways and British Caledonian seems slightly stronger under the new guidelines than under the old ones. Is that so? The prime market for these services is Africa, apart from Hong Kong, and British Airways are now given a strong preference there—stronger than it has been in the past. How will that affect independent freight airlines. As the Secretary of State knows, if they are to stay in business the British carriers need to raise new capital to buy expensive new aeroplanes, and nothing should be done to cast any doubts about their position in the future.
As the hon. Member for Kingswood said, the debate has constantly turned towards the Skytrain affair. Indeed, several of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), spoke very effectively.


although very briefly, about Skytrain, as indeed many of us have done in earlier debates. Let me make my position and, I think, that of my hon. Friends absolutely clear.
I have no special brief for Mr. Laker beyond this. He has built an airline on nothing but his own efforts and those that he has inspired in the people who work with him. He has risked his own money, his hard-won money, in an industry in which not very many chairmen or managing directors stake their personal fortunes on their commercial judgment. If sometimes he seems to express himself strongly, perhaps we should remember just what he has at stake.
Freddie Laker has never come to the Government with a begging bowl asking for money. He has profited solely by serving the needs of the consumer and doing that better and more cheaply than some of his competitors. He saw the chance to widen the market for air travel and to go for a genuine new market. He convinced the CAA. He convinced his bankers as well. He convinced the public. However, the Secretary of State chose to ignore the expert advice and, indeed, to ignore the customer that Freddie Laker had convinced. In this instance the Secretary of State has fallen for the old argument that passengers exist to serve airlines, rather than that airlines exist to serve passengers.
Therefore, these questions about the judgment of the Secretary of State are still unanswered. He made much of the capacity limitation agreements between North Atlantic carriers. We are still not clear about this. We have just not been told exactly which carriers have agreed to just what limitations. Which are they and what are the limitations, and how would they be affected by licensing Sky-train? Does the Minister know? Has he really explored this matter? I hope that he will not rely on an airy sort of assumption, such as that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, who said that no American carrier had applied for a licence for a Skytrain operaton. "Oh", said the junior Minister, "but one or two of them have said that they might like to do so." However, they have not done so. Therefore, let us have what has actually happened

and what agreements have been made, and not those which might be made in the future.
The Secretary of State constantly fell between two stools in his argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, on the one hand the Secretary of State implied that Skytrain benefited the customer but little, and on the other hand that it would be hair-raisingly diversionary if it were licensed. Let us look at the facts. There is a very wide measure of opinion—shared, I think—that Skytrain would develop at least some new traffic. I think that the Government see it as developing about 25 per cent. new traffic. We can argue about the amount—25 per cent. or 50 per cent. After all, the Secretary of State is not too sure about his own statistics. At one stage it was a matter of £10 million either way. Even these days that is a fair amount of money.
However, the Secretary of State is not prepared to allow Skytrain because it would divert traffic, although it would create new traffic as well. On the other hand, he is prepared to dual-designate Concorde, on routes even alongside BCAL if necessary—and we appreciate the reasons for doing that. However, there is little doubt that the only people who will travel on Concorde are people who already travel in the first-class compartments of other aeroplanes. Like many people, I believe that they would travel more often, but I do not believe that this would generate a totally new class of travel of the width, size and scale that Skytrain would generate.

Mr. Shore: Before the hon. Gentleman pushes that analogy with Concorde any further, he should refresh his memory on the wording of paragraph 8(a) and precisely the pledge that is given there that there should be adequate arrangements to alleviate any adverse affects on the airlines so affected. The same argument clearly cannot and does not apply to the introduction of Skytrain.

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed. The Secretary of State is absolutely right. The point I make is that he, like us, is not absolutely opposed to dual designation. He would open the door to dual designation. Where we differ is on just where we would open it and to what extent we would open it.
I repeat that we do not wish to divide the House against the whole of the guidelines. Unlike the curate, we cannot even try to take the good and the bad out of this particular egg. While it is none too good, it is certainly not so bad that we should throw it out entirely. However, the Secretary of State's decision to close the door on Skytrain is a different matter. It is against the best advice that he could get—that of the CAA. It is unfair, and it is discriminatory to Laker. It is restrictive and oppressive. It is against the interests of the consumer and it springs from a misplaced bias, I believe, against the entrepreneurial little man and in favour of the big battalions and of monopoly in industry.
That is why I ask my hon. Friends and, indeed, the friends of the passengers, the consumers and customers, in other Opposition parties, and indeed on the Benches behind the Secretary of State, to join us in the Lobby this evening in voting to reject the Secretary of State's view of Laker, although we accept the remainder of his guidelines for what they are—a brave and honest attempt to stabilise the British air transport industry.

6.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): At the outset I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on his first offering from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he will long remain a Front Bench Opposition spokesman.
Before I come to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman, whose speech was primarily directed, as has been most of the Opposition's case, to the issue of Skytrain, perhaps it would be helpful if I brought the House back to the basic objectives which my right hon. Friend set for himself in initiating this policy. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to recognise that these basic objectives are, in our judgment, integrally connected, each one being vital to the other.
The first objective was that we should strengthen British aviation, strengthen the airline industry and harness the effort of the British airlines to compete effectively against foreign competition. That is an objective which has been supported on both sides of the House. The second

objective was to safeguard employment and the contribution to the balance of payments. That is an issue which my hon. Friends in particular have touched upon in their contributions to the debate.
The third objective was to produce an outcome which is fair to British Airways, as the national carrier, and which obviously plays the largest part in the total civil aviation effort of this country, and yet at the same time one which is fair to British Caledonian and the other major carriers. The fourth objective, on which the hon. Member for Chingford touched, was to obtain an enduring settlement which would offer greater stability to the entire industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could give an assurance that we would keep the matter, in effect, under constant scrutiny. I think that what we must do is to preserve continuity as far as possible, to see how the airlines can together make this work. I do not want to see any measure of uncertainty imported as a result of anything that I might say in this respect.
I am bound to say that, if the Opposition accept those objectives, they are in reality caught up in the vortices of their own illogicality when they go on to say that we should consider Skytrain in isolation. We cannot compartmentalise the Skytrain issue, a point to which I shall come back when I have developed certain other matters more broadly in relation to the policy itself.
What it really comes to is that, on the first issue before the House and before the country, the first test of the policy that has been adumbrated and accepted by the Opposition—because they are not going to divide on it—is that they do not want to apply the policy in practice. [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition Whip, who has not been present for most of the time, will restrain himself.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised an issue in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8, and I shall try to deal at this time in isolation with various issues raised by hon. Gentlemen. Paragraph 8 widens the scope to take into account the possibility of the preferred airline agreeing. If it does not agree, the Civil Aviation Authority then applies the rules in paragraph 7. These set out the


circumstances in which the CAA might license another airline to provide a new service into either BA's or BCAL's sphere of interest. It does not enable it to double-designate. Consequently, if an airline is found to be falling down on a route the CAA's only recourse would be to remove its licence when considering a licence for another airline. This is a fairly complex issue and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to reflect further on it when he reads the Official Report tomorrow. Some of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), with whom I had the pleasure of debating this issue in an Adjournment debate when we were here exclusively, expressed some reserve about the policies we have undertaken.

Mr. Higgins: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman at this point, I do so simply because he did not clear up one other point on the issue of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the guidance. Will he confirm that in paragraph 8(b) and 8(c), where it speaks of British Airways or British Caledonian giving their consent respectively, it is on the clear understanding that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld?

Mr. Davis: That is not so, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at what I have said he will see that the importation of those words would be otiose.
I want to come to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton. There is no comparability with the situation in 1971, when important assets of a public company were pillaged by the then Government. There was no measure of mutuality. This policy is entirely based upon a fair deal for both airlines, and I believe that it has been accepted in that spirit by both of them.
It really would not have been possible, for the reasons adumbrated by my right hon. Friend at the commencement of the debate, to have taken any course which would, in effect, have emasculated British Caledonian and yet at the same time preserved employment. I do not propose to say more on that point at this stage, because this argument has been a private one between us although in the House itself.

Mr. Tebbit: Public.

Mr. Davis: Public and private at the same time, because the hon. Gentleman was not there to offer his observations at that particular time.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who has not been here throughout, no doubt for very good reasons, intervened and asked what proportion British Airways enjoyed on the North Atlantic routes generally and on New York-London. The answer is 40 per cent. and 34 per cent. respectively. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) raised a point also raised by the hon. Member for Chingford: what was the position of the smaller airlines, and were they to be prejudiced in consequence of decisions made by my right hon. Friend? I really do not see how they are likely to be prejudiced. They will still be free to bid for non-scheduled business in all parts of the world. British Caledonian will enjoy a preference on passenger charter services and freight charter services where the number or capacity of British airlines needs for the time being to be restricted. This is in its sphere of interest, and BA will enjoy a similar preference in those parts of Africa within its sphere of influence. Although there have been no major departures, the interests of independent airlines have been advanced.
The hon. Member for Worthing raised the question of Concorde. Like him, I welcome the robustness of Mr. Secretary Coleman in the United States in the statement he made a day or so ago. We must hope that American public opinion will not be seen to be as adamant as that which seems to have manifested itself in New York at the present time. We shall have to see how these matters develop; and, of course, the British Government with its French partners will ensure that British interests are fully protected in the debate wherever it may occur in the United States.
The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who seemed during the debate to be somewhat unduly influenced by the demands of his mother-in-law, made what I thought was for him, as somebody I have always acknowledged as an expert in this field, a disappointing contribution. I would have though he might have offered some helpful remarks, some positive remarks about the review generally.


Instead, he chose to devote himself to Skytrain with only one or two exceptions. He said that we were withdrawing transatlantic rights. The foreign airlines to which the hon. Member was alluding often do not use these transatlantic rights, as he knows better than most people in th House.
The hon. Member went on to suggest that we were throwing away traffic rights as far as the withdrawal of British Caledonian's unused rights were concerned. None of those has been negotiated as yet, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. He went on to charge the Government with dogma.

Mr. Warren: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman, since he has referred not only to my mother-in-law but also to my speech, and ask him to concentrate his attention very carefully on the fact that 16 airlines have the right to operate out of London Airport to New York carrying passengers? He has consistently refused to negotiate with these people to give British airlines equality of opportunity to operate across the North Atlantic, and he knows it.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that. This does not go to the heart of the debate. Most of the 16 airlines to which he has referred do not exercise those rights. As far as the Americans are concerned, I shall be coming to consider capacity questions in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman said that we were dogmatic in our approach. That is not a reflection that would have come from the hon. Member for Chingford, because I remember what he said during a slightly more public debate during the early hours of the morning on 21st July last. He said that there was no question of dogma dictating Government decisions and that it was "a balance of judgment". That was a comment far removed from virtually all the Opposition speeches on Skytrain that we have heard today.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the Highland and Islands airports. He will know that a consultation document is to be produced—we hope shortly after Easter—to deal with regional airport strategy. It would be more appropriate to deal with his points during those consultations. Where a route deserves support, it is

open to the Secretary of State for Scotland to authorise a third-level operation. Incidentally British Caledonian, a company in which the hon. Gentleman firmly believes, is firmly opposed to the Skytrain project. I hope he will accept that advice from BCAL even if he is not prepared to accept it from me.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), because he largely agreed with the Government, made a sensible contribution. The three factors to which he referred—that we are facing up to strong international competition, that we are in a continuing recession when there is little ground for optimism, and that the major private operators have accepted this arrangement—were taken fully into account in the review.
Georgetown is integrally associated with the Caribbean Islands routes and it would not have been possible, in order to achieve a fair and viable operation, for that to have been granted to British Caledonian. All I can say about the negotiations on Atlanta-Houston is that we will press on with them as rapidly as possible.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is right to be concerned about any unplanned growth at Gatwick. Such development as has occurred there has been undertaken after full consultation with the local authorities. The hon. Member will know that the London regional document is subject to consultation at this moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and I will be hearing people who wish to make observations about the strategy to be followed.
I come now to Skytrain. We have given this matter the most careful consideration. Our discussions with Mr. Laker have been by no means short discussions. As recently as 15th January, I spent an hour and three-quarters with him and my officials spent four hours with him. The reason why it is difficult to reach any conclusions about the whole variety of assumptions is precisely that there are so many upon which this issue can be based.
Precisely as the hon. Member for Chingford said, it is a balance of judgment. The whole scope of the review has clearly not been undertaken with any dogmatic approach to aviation. We have


considered what we think is right. I am not saying that we are infallible—of course not—

Mr. Warren: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davis: —but hon. Members opposite are far from being infallible, as the electorate reminded them not long ago. What we have done is far removed from the "phoney" indictments that we have heard from the Opposition today. They have largely ignored the over-capacity on the North Atlantic and the size of the challenge that Laker would represent in the present context, the fact that Skytrain would add about 255,000 seats a year on the London-New York route and the fact that there is bound to be a competing United States service.

Mr. Warren: No.

Mr. Davis: Of course there is.

Mr. Warren: Of course there is not.

Mr. Davis: The American airlines have made their position plain, and I am not prepared to accept the bogus assumptions advanced by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Warren: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davis: No. I have only five more minutes.

Mr. Warren: The Minister is making bogus assumptions.

Mr. Davis: I might remind the hon. Member that a good traveller is one who does not know where he is going but a perfect traveller does not know where he has been. The hon. Member is both a good and a perfect traveller.
There is bound to be a substantial diversion from British Airways. That is something which this Government are not prepared to accept. All scheduled carriers are today making losses on the North Atlantic. British Airways are still losing on their New York service. British Airways have made an estimate, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to confuse, that they would be exposed to grave damage at this moment. That is something that this Government are not prepared to accept in the present context of the North Atlantic.
Capacity agreements must be maintained in the foreseeable future. To allow Skytrain to operate would be wholly inconsistent with that purpose. United States carriers have made it clear in negotiating the present arrangements that Skytrain will have to come out of the British share. That is the issue at stake.

Mr. Stonehouse: How does the Minister dispose of the case, put forward by the CAA itself at least twice, that there is a public need for Skytrain and that it will open up new demand? Has he had information from the CAA in recent weeks that it has gone back on that advice?

Mr. Davis: We and the CAA disagree—we have said that quite openly—but on Skytrain it was operating within different guidelines. What I have said is that the issue of Skytrain is fundamentally linked with the four propositions that I advanced at the start.
When it comes to the balance of payments, I do not believe that Mr. Laker has been consistent. It depends entirely on the forum before which he appears. He has made a whole variety of assertions about the benefits which would accrue. One of those is that there would be a manifest benefit to the Americans if Skytrain were permitted to go ahead. But at whose expense? The answer is that it would be at our expense. That is something that the House should fully understand. Those are Mr. Laker's own words, and that testimony is rather more valuable than that which we have heard today from the Opposition. I also believe that if we were to seek to negotiate further on Skytrain the Americans would demand a major concession from us. I have already said that that is not acceptable.
I thought that the argument about cheapness was heavily indicted by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. He said, in effect, that cheapness is not always best. Other Conservative Members are falling into the classic Court Line-Clarkson syndrome. We must recognise that we cannot introduce something of this kind in a disordered market. It is essential for the benefit of the whole travelling public to create order out of the chaos which existed before. That is


what this Goverment are proposing to do.
The Opposition have said that we have treated Mr. Laker unfairly. We ought to examine the credentials of our accusers on that matter. They were content to pillage the assets of British Airways in 1971, with no question of compensation, for routes which had been worked, developed and invested in.
Laker took a calculated risk in this matter. He did not know what conditions the United States might impose. He bought those DC10s at low prices and on extremely favourable terms. It is abundantly clear that if Mr. Laker were to come on to that route there would be created a risk of unemployment in British Airways, and the Government are not prepared to put up with that.
I commend my right hon. Friend's policy to the House and ask the House

to reject the Opposition's spurious and badly-argued case.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Statement on Civil Aviation Policy Guidance, to be given by the Secretary of State to the Civil Aviation Authority in pursuance of section 3(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 with respect to the performance of its functions, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved in pursuance of section 3(3) of that Act.

Motion made, and Question put,

That this House rejects the Secretary of State for Trade's decision to cancel Laker Airways Skytrain designation and to require the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke the Skytrain licence contrary to the Authority's considered view that it should be allowed to stand.—[Mr. Higgins]:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 262.

Division No. 71]
AYES
[7.00 pm


Alison, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hunt, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony
Hurd, Douglas


Arnold, Tom
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W?df'd)


Awdry, Daniel
Elliott, Sir William
Jessel, Toby


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Baker, Kenneth
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Banks, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Beith, A. J.
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs EIaine


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kimball, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lamont, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Freud, Clement
Lane, David


Blaker, Peter
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Glyn Dr Alan
Lloyd, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Loveridge, John


Brittan, Leon
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodlad, Alastair
MacCormick, Iain


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gorst, John
McCrindle, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Macfarlane, Neil


Buck, Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacGregor, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Burden, F. A.
Gray Hamish
Madel, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Eldon
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Channon, Paul
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marten, Nell


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Cordle, John H.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Corrle, John
Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Crawford, Douglas
Henderson, Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus


Crouch, David
Hicks Robert
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony




Neubert, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tebbit, Norman


Newton, Tony
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Normanton, Tom
Scott-Hopkins, James
Thompson, George


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Osborn, John
Shepherd, Colin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Fred
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Parkinson, Cecil
Sims, Roger
Wakeham, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sinclair, Sir George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wall, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Speed, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Watt, Hamish


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rathbone, Tim
Sproat, Iain
Wells, John


Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Stainton, Keith
Welsh, Andrew


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Reid, George
Stanley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ridsdale, Julian
Stokes, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davidson, Arthur
Huckfield, Les


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Archer, Peter
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Ashley, Jack
Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Delargy, Hugh
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bean, R. E.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunnett, Jack
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
John, Brynmor


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ennals, David
Judd, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Faulds, Anthony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kinnock, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Lambie, David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Campbell, Ian
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lee, John


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)


Carter, Ray
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilbert, Dr John
Lipton, Marcus


Cartwright, John
Ginsburg, David
Litterick, Tom


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Golding, John
Loyden, Eddie


Clemitson, Ivor
Gould, Bryan
Luard, Evan


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grant, John (Islington C)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Grocott, Bruce
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
McNamara, Kevin


Cronin, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Madden, Max


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.
Magee, Bryan


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Horam, John
Marks, Kenneth


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Marquand, David




Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Price, William (Rugby)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Radice, Giles
Tierney, Sydney


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roberts, Gwllym(Cannock)
Tomlinson, John


Meacher, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn
Torney, Tom


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tuck, Raphael


Mendelson, John
Rodgers, Wiliam (Stockton)
Urwin, T. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Millan, Bruce
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Molloy, William
Rowlands, Ted
Ward, Michael


Moonman, Eric
Sandelson, Neville
Watkins, David


Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe)
Sedgemore, Brian
Watkinson, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Weetch, Ken


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wellbeloved, James


Newens, Stanley
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, James (Pollock)


Noble, Mike
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Whitlock, William


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ovenden, John
Small, William
Williams, Sir Thomas


Owen, Dr David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Padley, Walter
Snape, Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Park, George
Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Parker, John
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Parry, Robert
Stoddart, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.



Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. Jobn Ellis.


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.14 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Without my going into great detail the House will understand that the Bill has been drafted to deal with a problem that has to be taken on board by any modern society, namely, the growing threat of terrorism and the possibility that terrorists will turn their minds to dangerous nuclear materials.
Last year we had a review of the matter and decided to recommend to the House that we should provide a special cover of a kind dealt with in the Bill for fissile materials for the civil programme. This covers plutonium, highly-enriched uranium and toxic substances. If such materials are stolen they are a danger and may be used, under certain circumstances, to create a public hazard. There is always the risk of a ransom being sought by someone who has acquired these materials.
I do not have to remind the House that terrorism is international. A material may be acquired and transported abroad. Therefore, the Government have decided that two things could and should be done. The first does not require legislation. It is to strengthen—I shall deal with the details later—the security at Harwell, Dounreay, Winfrith and Wind-scale. The second is to give further consideration to the way in which the problems of the transit of these materials may be handled. Against the two risks—the first is terrorism and the second cannot entirely exclude theft—we have heavily strengthened the physical security at the establishments, in terms of fences, buildings, alarm systems, communications and vehicles. However, there is a risk of violence, and in the Government's judgment armed guards are needed to safeguard and to store materials as well as for transit purposes.
I should be very surprised if the House, despite its awareness and alertness to the risks I have mentioned, did not look with some reluctance at the possibility of introducing more armed men. Frankly, I feel exactly the same. I think we all do. We have been proud of the fact that we have managed to keep such violence as there is in our society well below the level familiar in other countries, partly because the distribution of weapons has been so much harder for the public, hence for the police. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary formerly held the post, I remember his visiting America and being asked on television why we did not arm the police in Britain. He said that he was always puzzled why they armed the public in the United States. In my view that was a most sensible answer to the question.
In this instance we are talking about an exceptional risk and danger. We must ensure that these materials do not fall into the wrong hands. I do not have to ask the House to share the anxieties that I might have but I am sure that in the event of some incident occurring and our not having made this basic elementary provision of armed protection, Parliament would feel that the Government had let it down.
There is another aspect which I should mention in the international context. In many other countries these materials are already under armed guard. Some international groups might be interested in terrorist activities and looking around the world to see where these materials could be most easily acquired, and it would be awful if we were considered to be a soft target, because that might invite some form of attack.
In Britain we have, of course, for some time provided for military fissile materials the same sort of protection as I am now describing. Therefore, in a sense it could be argued that the only innovation in the Bill is the extension to civil fissile materials of the same type of protection as we have provided for military fissile materials, because the materials that we are speaking about are much the same, though their end use is very different.
I make clear that armed guards are only the first line of defence in any operation of this kind. They provide a


powerful deterrent. They are in a position to sound the alarm. They may hold off an attack. I hope that I shall not be pressed to say more, but I point out that reinforcement arrangements are available, which have existed for a long time. It is a very different order of business from the arming of the constabulary.
I turn to the method recommended in the Bill. It is proposed that we should arm the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. It has been a police force since 1955. Since 1971, when British Nuclear Fuels Limited became a separate organisation, the coverage that the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary has provided has extended to BNFL. Indeed, until recently the constabulary was unarmed.
The Bill would put these constables in the same position as the regular police—they are a police force—and the Ministry of Defence constabulary from which they at one time issued. The origins of the Atomic Energy Authority police stem from an Act in 1954, when they came out of the Ministry of Supply. The effect of that legislation, curious as it is to look back upon it, was that although the AEA constabulary was born of the Ministry of Defence constabulary, when it broke away it did not enjoy the Ministry of Defence constabulary's right to carry arms. In a sense, therefore, we are correcting a very curious anomaly.
When I say that the AEA constabulary will be put in the same position as the regular police and the Ministry of Defence constabulary, I mean that under the Bill it will have the right to possess firearms without specific authority under the Firearms Act 1968. It is always possible for us to meet an interim situation by the issue of firearms certificates, but that is not a very sensible way of dealing with an ongoing security problem.
The AEA constabulary is not a private police force. I would feel very differently about the Bill if we were not dealing with a disciplined force, established under an Act of Parliament dealing with special constables officered by people with police or Service experience, with a chief constable who is responsible to a statutory body—the Atomic Energy Authority—with the statutory body responsible to

a Secretary of State and with a Secretary of State responsible to the House. It is a perfectly regular line of command—proper police under proper control.
If the Bill is passed, constables will carry arms only under proper standing orders, which will be submitted by the chief constable of the AEA constabulary for my approval, and I would follow normal precedents in matters of this kind. The constables would be trained, and some have been trained already, to very high police standards. I have not in any way anticipated the legislation, however. Pending the passage of the Bill, selected constables have had firearms certificates issued by local police authorities, but that, of course, is not the right way to deal with this question in the long run. The training of these constables, however, has begun and it will continue because the Government felt many months ago that it would be wrong to run a hazard between the decision being taken by Ministers and the Bill becoming law. We felt it right to go ahead on the basis of the Firearms Act 1968, and I believe that we were in order in doing so.

Mr. John Farr: Under the existing arrangements I take it that constables are permitted to take their weapons home, because they are certificated holders. Under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, however, when they assume the authority to hold arms will they have to surrender their weapons when they leave work and collect them when they return, or will they be permitted to take them home?

Mr. Benn: That is a very good question, which deserves a precise answer—which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give when he replies to the debate. From my understanding of the matter my impression is that under the Firearms Act a man has authority to carry firearms, and that is the position in the interim arrangements. Whether the local police have the power to restrict the circumstances in which such a constable may carry a firearm I cannot tell, and I do not know whether the position varies according to the area. Under the new arrangements the constables would be covered by standing orders. I cannot tell whether that would include the provision to enable the weapons to be taken home. The intention is that they should


be limited to the areas for which the defensive arrangements are necessary, namely, the sites in question and the transit. This could well give rise to some changes in existing practice.
Given that the firearms certificate arrangement under which constables may hold weapons as individuals is not a satisfactory way of handling the matter, we thought it right to legislate. That is why the Bill was introduced. It is a fairly clear and intelligible Bill. Its main purpose is contained in Clause 1, which is that all Atomic Energy Authority constables shall be deemed to be Crown servants—and that, in a sense, puts them back into the position they would have been in if they had not left the Ministry of Defence constabulary. All weapons that they purchase shall be deemed to be purchased for the public service, on the authority of the chief constable.
Clauses 2 and 3 complement the provision that I have described and try to relate it to the nature of the work for which weapons would be needed, in that they extend the circumstances in which the weapons can be used or carried to cover, wherever necessary, fissile maerials. The present police powers—these arise from the very different nature of normal police work—limit the carriage of arms by the police geographically and to the protection of certain types of property. In the case of the AEA constables, who are anyway already special constables under the Special Constables Act, the existing arrangements for the police would be suitable on the sites owned by the three bodies—that is, the Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels or Urenco—or within 15 miles of the sites, but they would not be valid outside the 15-mile limit. One of the major purposes of the Bill is to provide proper protection in transit. It therefore enables weapons to be carried in transit, wherever that transit may take them, and of course some of the lines of route concerned are long. They would cover property—that is to say, fissile material—owned or in the possession of the Crown or of companies, which would include BNFL and Urenco, or for the purposes of recovering stolen articles in these categories.

Clause 3 defines nuclear materials flexibly, and it would be reasonable for

the House to give the Government the power to define what is a fissile material for the purposes of the Act. We want just that bit of flexibility from time to time in producing the Regulations to cover these materials. It clarifies a technical point that arises from the exact definition of what is 15 miles from a particular yard.

Clause 4 contains normal definitions, but also takes the opportunity to clarify a technical legal doubt about the powers of Authority constables outside the sites to which they are appointed. It in no way extends those powers. The point is a complex one, but I shall try to explain it briefly.

The powers of Authority constables derive ultimately from Section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1860. This enabled special constables to be appointed for places referred to as
Her Majesty's yards at…and within 15 miles of such yards…".

It went on to say that outside such yards police powers should be used only
in respect of the property of the Crown or of persons subject to naval, marine or military discipline".
It has always been taken, as is only common sense, that the application of this section to Authority constables means that their 15-mile radius was measured from Authority sites, not from Crown establishments in the country—that derives from the 1954 change—and that they did not have powers in relation to the persons or property or individuals subject to military discipline. There was, however, a lingering doubt, which the subsection removes. I hope that my explanation will have satisfied those who might seek to ask questions arising from the clause.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the latter part of the clause about definitions, but the machinery of the clause lies in an earlier portion about which he has said comparatively little. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a special constable who is armed may, if the Bill is enacted, go anywhere where he suspects that an infringement has taken place? In other words, are there no limits to the places that a special constable can go on suspicion with a gun in pursuit of his duties?

Mr. Benn: I do not suggest for one moment that the hon. Gentleman is raising a Committee point—indeed, it is a matter of importance—but I shall read the passage in my notes that covers his question. If the hon. Gentleman has further queries I shall arrange for them to be dealt with authoritatively.

Clause 3 is concerned with the geographical limitations on the powers of Authority constables. At present their powers apply only within 15 miles of duty, but when constables guard fissile materials in transit they must go outside that range. For example, it is several hundred miles from Dounreay, in the North of Scotland, to Windscale, in Cumbria. The clause enables constables to exercise police powers when more than 15 miles from sites. However, it clearly restricts the use of such powers to occasions when they are on duties directly associated with safeguarding fissile materials.

If there is further anxiety about these matters I may need to ask for them to be dealt with separately. Alternatively, they will be dealt with under standing orders. If there were some suspicion that fissile material had been stolen the Authority constabulary would have a duty to engage upon its duties in seeking to make a recovery. If the hon. Gentleman had in mind that general duties are to be carried out by armed Atomic Energy Authority constables, I can tell him that I do not believe that is intended. Nor do I see how that could arise. If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman or if he wants to ask me a special question, I shall see whether arrangements can be made to supply him with the answer that he requires at the end of the debate.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If an Atomic Energy Authority constable has a reasonable belief, or if it appears to him to be expedient, can he go anywhere he likes with his weapon to try to determine whether his suspicion is correct, under Clause 3? I want to know whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding, because it is certainly mine.

Mr. Benn: I am reluctant to try to give a precise answer to a question as detailed as that without advice. My understanding is that it being a disciplined police force under a chief constable, and under

standing orders, such matters would be submitted to me for approval. The exact circumstances under which action might be taken would be subject to control of a disciplined kind. An examination would take place before the standing orders were approved.
There might well be circumstances when it would be necessary for action to be taken of a precautionary or investigatory nature. I cannot rule that out. I cannot give a precise answer at this stage. As I understand it, such action would not derive from special constable status because that status has been available to the AEA constabulary for a long time. Once the Bill is enacted they will cease to be special constables with weapons; they will become Atomic Energy Authority constables under the discipline that flows from that status. Their status would be changed back from special constables with individual firearms certificates to Atomic Energy Authority constables, deemed to be Crown servants.
At an earlier stage I was asked whether constables take their weapons home. I was not able to give a precise reply when the question was raised. However, I can now say that the answer is "No". They draw their weapons from an armoury when going on duty and they hand them back when going off duty. When they go off duty they have to account for and return every round of ammunition that has been issued. The same will apply to the arrangements under the Bill if it is enacted.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There is some worry about the extent of the powers that may be provided under the Bill. That worry has been heightened by the doubt which may be bound up in the nature of the standing orders, which the House will not see. As we may be called upon to endorse a general principle, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate that there should be a schedule in the Bill to incorporate the powers to which he has referred, a schedule which might be incorporated in the standing orders subsequently?

Mr. Benn: Not only do I understand the anxiety that is felt, but, as I said when I introduced this part of the Bill, it runs against the grain for anyone with our tradition to see an extension of arms


provision. I have given the general reasons and I do not believe that it is necessary to hammer the point home.
To eliminate the idea from the minds of those who may be worried that this may be some great and untried innovation, I make it clear that in practice all we are doing is bringing two practices into line. There is already armed protection for fissile material intended for military purposes. We are bringing the same protective arrangements into force for fissile material that is intended for civil purposes. That is the first change. The Bill provides a harmonisation of practice. It is a practice that is already well understood and established.
The second thing that we are doing is bringing the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary back into line, in a sense, with the Ministry of Defence constabulary, a force which already uses and exercises the powers that are provided for in the Bill. I hope that that explanation will provide some reassurance. The Bill is a perfectly ordinary measure which will go through the ordinary procedures in both Houses of Parliament. Clearly the Government will consider most seriously any amendments that are tabled from any quarter.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Will the powers of the constables extend to the control of fissile materials in operative use in normal nuclear power stations?

Mr. Benn: No. The Bill does not extend to nuclear power stations. I know that my hon. Friend not only has an engineering interest but a knowledge of the industry. Partly because he has raised this matter in the past, and partly because of our general review in the summer of last year, we have given these matters careful consideration. We tried to assess carefully the nature of the hazard that might be involved as between the nuclear power stations and, at the moment, Magnox, and, soon to be, the advanced gas-cooled reactor stations. We made that assessment in relation to the four stations to which I have referred, all of which are unique. My hon. Friend knows better than myself that at Dounreay there is fast reactor work involving plutonium. At Windscale there is re-

processing. At Harwell and Winfrith there are research reactors.
The nature of the materials that might be stolen in a nuclear power station are quite different. The unused fuel elements are not themselves dangerous if the process is natural uranium. The fuel rods in place in the reactors would be hard to remove without a great deal of technical expertise. Fuel rods that had been removed, once irradiated, would be in ponds. Were they removed they would kill those who removed them.
The problem of nuclear power stations is of a different order of attitude. We do not have the same rigorous protection for nuclear power stations. If there were anxiety that we were extending the armed guards too far I should not feel able to justify the extension of the Bill. We considered whether we should take the power to extend the Bill further by Regulation, but we thought it right to draw a clear line at this stage and to return to Parliament at any time if it was thought right to cover the point that my hon. Friend has made in legislation.
News keeps reaching me from amazing sources. I am amazed at the amount I learn as my speech proceeds. I have been asked about the rôle of constables and I shall read the message which has reached me. I was asked whether a constable can go anywhere with his gun at any time to try to recover fissile material and to make an arrest. It is envisaged that a constable would pursue a criminal or try to recover material only in circumstances of hot pursuit—that is, immediately after an attack had been made. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need fear that armed AEA constables will be marauding, searching for plutonium or other fissile materials.

Mr. A. J. Beith: In a Bill as important as this, it is important to recognise the difference between the words "envisaged" and "empowered". What the right hon. Gentleman and the Authority envisage may be much narrower than what is empowered by the Bill. We must look at the latter, not the former.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that. Indeed, I devoted part of my speech to establishing that the line of accountability between constables and the House of Commons is


identical to the line of accountability and responsibility of Ministry of Defence constables, and, for that matter, police constables who may be armed.
Since the AEA constabulary came out of the Ministry of Defence constabulary, those officers lost the right to carry arms. Therefore, in restoring their right to carry arms, they will be subject to the same safeguards that operate in regard to Ministry of Defence constables. The situation is exactly the same.
Let me repeat the line of command. It is a disciplined police force. It has its own chief constable. He has the responsibility for preparing standing orders, which in current parlance are known as guidelines, which differentiate and delimit what may be empowered, envisaged and authorised. Those guidelines will be made available to the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. In other words, the AEA is responsible to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament.
I do not want to give the impression that there is any difference between what we are now recommending and what is a known, trusted and tried system of police authority, even where the police have the power to carry arms. I shall not pursue that matter, although I am glad to have that point on the record.
I apologise for speaking so long, although I do not complain about any of the questions which have been put to me. We have introduced this Bill reluctantly, for the reasons I have given, but the House and the country recognise that there is a real danger. People are entitled to know that the Government, with full parliamentary approval, are providing proper protection against hazards that are now known to be real ones. The Bill has been carefully prepared and considered to embrace all the needs and anxieties which have been in people's minds. The Bill sets up a constabulary in which there will be a clear line of accountability and practice. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading so that, after due consideration in Committee and on Report, it may be enacted.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: The Secretary of State explained in some detail the purpose of the Bill. He made it clear, and most of us would agree with

him, that it represents a regrettable but unavoidable development in the battle that is being waged not only in this country but throughout the world against un-,principled terrorism.
The measure in poltical terms is not an earth-shaker of a Bill,if that is the right term to use when talking of nuclear power, and we do not intend to oppose its Second Reading, yet its implications for a nation which hitherto has managed to keep the use of civil arms to a minimum are worrying to us all. However, in the context of world terrorism and the need for the utmost protection for society, this kind of measure seems inevitable.
There appeared in The Times yesterday a report by its Washington correspondent about a secret agreement made between the United States and six other major industrial countries. The agreement concerns the safety of nuclear materials and facilities, especially where they are being transported for export or after importation.
I wish to quote one paragraph from that report which is relevant to this debate:
Nuclear importers must have adequate physical security for these nuclear facilities and materials to prevent theft and sabotage, and nuclear importers would not transfer any materials or duplications of equipment to third countries without obtaining identical assurances.
If, as implied in that report, an agreement of an international nature is being drawn up between the major industrial countries, including presumably the United Kingdom, the present Bill will play an important part in such international collaboration, which is absolutely necessary.
On Monday evening, when the House debated EEC documents on nuclear safety, concern was expressed about the need to achieve maximum safety in nuclear production techniques and systems. There was a general call for the fullest possible disclosure of information to the public, so that unnecessary fears could be allayed and the whole question of nuclear safety could be put into proper perspective. That need applies equally to this measure. But the present Bill deals with the other side of the nuclear coin—namely, the need for the utmost physical protection for our atomic energy plants and the fissile materials used in them.
In the United Kingdom the security risk is twofold. One risk involves the theft of bomb-making materials, which could happen when goods were in transit. It has been said that radioactive materials are their own protection, but a recent survey by the Atomic Energy Commission in the United States makes rather frightening reading in this respect. To supplement my argument, let me quote from that report:
A survey by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States indicates that a clandestine nuclear bomber with a moderate knowledge of high school chemistry or physics could acquire all the essential ingredients needed for a nuclear bomb which could equal about 100 tons of chemical explosives. Admittedly, such a bomb would be heavy, inefficient and highly unstable. But if the terrorist is dedicated to his mission and the bomb is transportable by car, he is in business. The damage caused by such a bomb would be horrific; a nuclear explosion with a 10-ton yield in the courtyard of a large office building might expose to lethal radiation as many as 1,000 people in the building. A 100-ton bomb in a typical residential area might kill as many as 2,000 people, mainly by fall-out. The same explosion in a car park beneath a skyscraper could kill as many as 50,000 people and destroy the entire building.
That amplifies the dangers of the use of stolen fissile materials.
The second danger lies in planned sabotage or threatened sabotage of our nuclear power stations, for either financial or political blackmail, by organised terrorist groups. This matter is not covered in the Bill as it stands, except in the plants named, but I stress the dangers following the escalation of hijacking which has developed since the taking of one political prisoner a few years ago, such as the incident involving the Quebec Liberation Movement, and the kidnapping of Dr. Herrema last year, to the hijacking of cars, aircraft and, recently, the hijacking in Holland of an entire train, culminating in the taking over of the OPEC headquarters in Vienna. We see an inexorable movement towards larger terrorist targets.
What lies ahead? Shall we see the hijacking of a whole town or community or of a source of energy for an entire community? So far in this country, as far as is known—and there has been little information on this matter—we have not experienced a major incident of that nature, although there have been reports

of successful bomb hoaxes at Dounreay in 1972 and Windscale in 1975 which have exposed some flaws in our security systems.
Serious incidents in other countries have underlined the dangers. On 15th August last year Breton nationalists caused two explosions at the Mont d'Arree power station in Brittany. On 4th May the Meinhof terrorists caused two explosions in the Fessenheim power station in Germany and in 1973 a band of only 15 guerrillas took a nearly-completed power station in Argentina. There have been many other incidents of terrorist threats and thefts of uranium rods and other materials in transit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) have put down Questions over the past year about security arrangements for nuclear stations and materials, but little information has been released, possibly for security reasons. It is reasonable to suspect that, like the United States, France and Germany, we have been threatened with similar terrorist activities. It is essential that the high level of safety we apply in our nuclear production techniques should be applied to security as well.
It is a horrifying thought, but one which we must face as we move into the nuclear age, that murderous and ruthless bands of terrorists are likely to attempt to develop and use nuclear devices. The strengthening of our defences and security last autumn when the Home Office announced the arming of guards at our four nuclear establishments was a sensible move, particularly because of the need to protect our stocks of enriched uranium. The development of our nuclear processing industry, which I think could become one of our largest overseas currency earners, means that security measures must embrace the transportation of nuclear materials. The derailing or hijacking of a train carrying such materials would make the Great Train Robbery pale into insignificance.
The Bill is inherently right in its objective but the creation of a separate armed police force under the control of the Authority obviously causes some alarm among hon. Members in all parts of the House and among people outside.


Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill deal with the mechanics of establishing the separate force and with the properties it can guard.

Clause 3, in extending the geographical limits of the powers of these nuclear constables, appears to give them the right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has pointed out, to search any building or area while they are pursuing someone involved in the theft or attempted theft of nuclear fissile materials.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this point. Under Clause 3 the constables do not have to be chasing anyone. It is sufficient for them to suspect and that is a very different matter.

Mr. Hannam: I accept my hon. Friend's point. This is a situation in which conflict could occur between the special constables and the civil police who would normally be responsible for investigations outside the boundary fences of power stations.
No one would dispute the need to extend the 15-mile limit to cover the long distances which nuclear materials may have to travel, but a number of my hon. Friends and I are worried about the apparent freedom given to armed special constables to enter other areas and search for suspected offenders. This needs clarification, and I hope that the Under-Secretary who is to reply will go further than the Secretary of State and give more details of these powers and also say whether discussions took place with police authorities and the Police Federation.
We shall need to examine the Bill in much greater detail in Committee to ensure the continuance of the balance we have achieved between issuing arms to policemen for specific duties and an unwelcome extension of gun-carrying to a separate force. We shall also want to be assured that there will be the strictest control and limitation on the use of arms, especially outside the perimeter fences of power stations.
I understand that the present AEA force totals about 400. Is this number expected to increase, and how many will be issued with arms? No doubt other important points will be raised by hon.

Members, and I hope that we shall get some answers from the Under-Secretary. Terrorism and hijacking, if extended to nuclear materials, could cause devastating damage. We must make every effort to prevent such action. Prevention, rather than cure, should be the order of the day.
We all admire the way our civil police force carries out its increasing battle against terrorism and crime under great stress and danger. The special circumstances of nuclear protection make it necessary to create this separate force. We have seen such forces in the United States and other countries where, unfortunately, the gun prevails. In supporting the Bill, we express our fears over such developments in the United Kingdom but accept the need for improvements in the regulations surrounding AEA constabulary. With these reservations, and after due and careful regard for the points raised in the debate, we shall offer no opposition to the Second Reading but will want to examine the Bill very carefully in Committee.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I join with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in regretting the need for the Bill, but as realists we have to accept that a risk of nuclear terrorism exists in our modern industrial society and it is as well to be prepared for it.
I have put down Questions on this matter, as have a number of other hon. Members. I think that there are two principal risks. The Bill covers the possibility of the seizure of fissile materials and their use by terrorists for wrong purposes, with either political or criminal motives. It would be extremely difficult and dangerous to construct a nuclear explosive device from such stolen materials, but there is an extension of nuclear technical knowledge these days and, with the proper precautions in advance, it might be possible for someone with a fair technical knowledge—not an amateur—to do it.
The Bill is necessary in order to cover this regrettable risk. It is no good saying that such terrorists would simply kill themselves. They might do so, but experience shows that fanaticism does not


take account of this possibility and we also have to guard against the person with psychopathic tendencies. Fear will not necessarily deter. As I say, the Bill, I think, adequtely covers the need for action against the theft of fissile material.
There is a parallel risk which the Bill does not cover, and I do not suggest that it should. There is the risk of the occupation of a normal electricity supply nuclear power station by terrorists entering by various means. It is not fanciful to suppose that they might do so by helicopter. Terrorists might use their occupation of the station to threaten the release of radio-activity. In practice that might be technically difficult, certainly with our Magnox stations, but not impossible; they might produce guns and tell the technical staff to do it for them. That apart, however, the very fact of occupation of the station by terrorists would give rise to fears on the part of the surrounding population. Even if the terrorists were not prepared to do what they threatened to do, their very presence would be psychologically difficult to deal with. The Government must give earnest thought to that situation possibly arising.
I am putting forward this argument as moderately as I can, because I am well aware that in mentioning a danger I can all too easily be accused of provoking or encouraging it. When I mentioned this risk and it got into public print last summer, one or two people said that I should not have named it because naming a risk puts ideas into people's minds, but I am sure that ideas will creep into minds without aid from me. The reaction from the usual official spokesman was that I was rather over-stretching my imagination. Official spokesmen in general, as is well known, are a menace to rational discussion of any question. I subsequently received acknowledgments from my right hon. Friends that the risk existed and that there might here be a gap in our defences. In a departmental interview with one of the responsible Ministers I was told that investigations would take place and action would follow. That I accepted for the time being as a firm assurance.
With a nuclear power station, the terrorist risk much concerns the staff, particularly technical supervisory staff. My

union—the Electrical Power Engineers' Association—has had conversations with the responsible authorities, with the Department and the generating boards, and has been anxious to assist. As the hon. Member for Exeter said, at about the time I raised this question an incident occurred at a nuclear power station in Brittany. Terrorists managed to get into the power station—I think that they were good Breton nationalists. One never knows what may happen within the present United Kingdom—that is not intended to be a hint or an encouragement to any national party or group in the country. The bombs exploded by the Breton nationalists were not large or particularly efficient.
That was perhaps a demonstration only, but it proved that it is possible even with all the normal security to penetrate a nuclear power station—in this case without my helicopter. No great damage was done, but it was not for want of trying. Other terrorists in future may not be so inexpert or so feeble. Next time they may be made of sterner stuff.
In the United States there is a large amount of literature on this subject which can be obtained, and it is openly discussed. I am glad that tonight the subject has been brought into the open and that we are talking about it calmly and unemotionally. I hope that my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate will avoid using the old cliché that the risk I have canvassed is under constant review. I would prefer to be excused that cliché on this occasion. If the subject is discussed openly and unemotionally the public will not be worried, but if there is concealment and false assurances the public will be properly troubled.
The safety record of nuclear power stations in this country has been extremely good, as was mentioned when we were discussing the European nuclear safety guidelines on Monday. I ask my hon. Friend when he replies to give one or two assurances about the normal electricity supply nuclear power station, remembering that, as the years pass, these installations are bound to increase in number, size and complexity.
I should like to have an assurance that we are not treating this Bill as an isolated police measure but that the whole subject of possible nuclear terrorism is being


thoroughly studied. No one wants armed guards at power stations. One of the glories of our electricity supply industry is that parties of schoolchildren go round nuclear stations. I am told that in the United States it is common to have armed guards and guard dogs. We do not want them here, but the staff need to know that in the event of an emergency they will be well supported, though they do not want the measures that will be taken to be given publicity in advance, of course.
For the future, in the design and construction of nuclear power stations, particularly in relation to the concrete containment, it is important that discussion should go on between the generating authorities, the Department and available experts, to ensure that everything is designed not only massively from the point of view of protecting the installations against leakage of radioactivity but additionally against bombs being placed there and exploded. We should not welcome the Bill—that would be the wrong way to put it—but accept the signal necessity for it.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: We are debating a sensitive and delicate problem. The debate is opportune and well timed. The Bill is narrow in concept and objective but it draws attention to a problem that is growing in size. It is difficult for many of us to understand the technical nature of the subject. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), an acknowledged expert, has an advantage which I envy.
I rise to express the misgivings of members of the public who are concerned about the enormity of the possibilities facing them. The long-term nature of these installations means that we have a problem with which we must continue to live. We cannot look at the position in terms of expediency—we must do so in terms of principle and of long-term solutions. It is, therefore, doubly important to have public discussion. The enormity is such that the public have the right to know.
In the comparison between the state of the discussion of this subject in the United States and in this country, one realises that there is something left to be desired here. We do not seem to

have the fullest possible openness about the threats, particularly from nuclear terrorism. There was a public exercise in January which helped to ventilate the problems, but there has been a marked reluctance by Government to unlock secrets about them.
One can identify simply some of the problems, but it is much more difficult to describe and define the solutions. As the hon. Gentleman has said, we face problems of sabotage, hijacking and hoaxes. I am concerned not so much whether special constables should carry arms as, in general, with whether the ancillary materials attached to nuclear establishments are kept in secure conditions when transported by road and rail. If I use the word "alarm", I should add that I have been surprised to learn that unguarded materials seems to be transported quite freely and, indeed, appear on occasions, if not to have been lost, at least to have been temporarily mislaid.
The question of hoaxes is another aspect. In January, the Minister told me, in reply to a Question about hoaxes, that there had been 23 of them at installations operated by the Atomic Energy Authority or British Nuclear Fuels since 1966. These, by their horrifying nature, are in themselves a threat and add a new dimension to our society. It is that aspect that I am mainly concerned about. I am concerned that the public should be aware of the problems that the Government face, and that we should have proper public discussion of them.
In reply to a Question about the security of materials, there was a curious reluctance to reveal all the information. The Minister told me that
collated records of material unaccounted for are not maintained centrally but are kept separately at each installation. Public security could be prejudiced by disclosure of these figures".—[Official Report, 15th December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 454.]
He went on, quite properly, to point out that nuclear materials go through a complex series of physical and chemical processes, so that it is difficult to carry out the accounting processes. But that in itself can be a source of lack of security, with which we should be equally concerned.
The solutions are the aspects that give me cause for most concern. The Bill


is narrow in its objective—it seeks to provide arms as a defence or deterrent effect. But the other aspect is of a very much larger nature. The true costs of security throughout the country, in all areas of installation and transport, including pipelines, will be enormous. It would be helpful to know the number of personnel likely to be affected in this case and what estimates have been made of the general security provisions for all forms of movement of materials.
There is a need for a continuous review of this matter as it evolves. We have an obligation to alert the public at large about the facts of the situation, and, in particular, the Government's obligation. We have a need to allay the fears, which I believe are most likely to be real, in the light of the ignorance that exists. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) referred to the problems of ignorance about nuclear safety and to the fact that many ordinary people felt that they did not understand those problems. I therefore acknowledge the content of the Bill, limited though it is, but also welcome the fact that it draws attention to the problems. I hope that we shall see a continuing dialogue with the public at large to make sure that they are as fully informed as are the public in other parts of the world.

8.18 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument directly. I want to speak about the Windscale-Calder Hall complex, in my constituency, which is a matter of concern to me and my constituents. I declare an interest, as sponsored member of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, which represents a large number of people who work in the industry.
Last Sunday on BBC2 there was a programme by one of my constituents, Hugh Falkus, in the "World About Us" series, about living in Eskdale, and the wildlife, flora and fauna and other pursuits that he is able to enjoy as a writer in South-West Cumberland. He managed to get through the programme, dealing with many environmental problems, without mentioning that just over the hills

was the Windscale-Calder Hall complex. I congratulate him on that, and look forward to the time when I can make a speech in the Chamber without having to refer to the Windscale-Calder Hall plant, since this is the second occasion this week when that has been necessary.
The programme ignored the brooding presence of this most complex nuclear plant—some would call it a malevolent presence, although I would not associate myself with those sentiments. It is really a massive installation—a split between British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority—and is, I hope, about to be further extended as a result of new work, although that has not been finally decided.
There has certainly been a great public debate about the issues. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West on the need for an even wider and more fully informed debate about the issues. There has not been much, if any, comment about the specific measures that we are discussing this evening—the actual physical security of the sites and of nuclear materials in transit. This is after more than 20 years of the sustained development of the nuclear energy industry in the United Kingdom.
Even in a constituency like mine, this aspect of the matter was hardly discussed at all until comparatively recently. Given that Windscale employs about 3,500 people, and given the association that their families have with the operations of the plant, it is an important issue to them.
One of the important aspects, which opponents and critics of the industry as a whole almost consistently ignore, is that the people who work in the industry are themselves as concerned as anyone about these matters—particularly so since, of necessity, their families are living and growing up in the vicinity of the installations.
The great dilemma that we face in a debate of this character, and in discussing an issue such as this, is that of secrecy. The Official Secrets Act is signed by people who work at Windscale—not just by the scientists but by most, if not all, of the people employed there.
It is genuinely difficult to have a more open debate about an issue of this kind,


particularly the transit of nuclear materials, when the whole subject is covered by the Official Secrets Act and will presumably go on being covered by it. We have this dilemma: it is right that the public should be better informed, and that the issue should be more fully debated, but this, in itself, is in some way self-defeating of the object of maintaining the security of the sites and of the materials which are the products of the sites.
I have always argued that we should have more openness in these matters, but this problem is obviously one that we encounter time and time again. The Bill is before us not principally because we have a nuclear energy industry but because of the kind of world we live in.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, terrorism is on the increase. It is regrettable that the activities of terrorists become more and more extreme. Their targets become larger and larger. Their demands, in the form of blackmail on society, become greater and greater. I suppose it is an almost inevitable conclusion that they will begin to look at nuclear installations and nuclear materials.
Like my hon. Friend, I do not welcome the Bill at all. I very much regret the Bill. I deplore the circumstances in which it has to be introduced. I do, however, recognise its necessity.
As Members of this House, I do not think we can lightly consider the introduction of a Bill of this nature. If this were a debate in which people were arguing that our civil police should be armed there would be absolutely no doubt in my mind where I would stand on such an issue. I should be totally opposed to it. But, of course, there are special circumstances in this case—the circumstances of terrorist attack on nuclear installations.
The possibility of the installations themselves being taken over has been discussed. The possibility of nuclear materials being hijacked, and the possibility of specific substances, such as plutonium, used not only in the nuclear sense but in the commercial sense, being stolen, obviously means that the transport of that element would be at growing risk.
One of the problems and one of the contradictions of the situation has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in that weapons-grade material, and materials that come under the various Defence Regulations, have always been the subject of guard in this way. There was obviously something of a contradiction, that similar, if not identical, nuclear materials in civil programmes were not so guarded, and in that sense we are only bringing the total handling and transport of nuclear materials under one general line of defence.
The stealing of fissile material by terrorists or by insurgents is entirely different from those terrorists having the facility to create nuclear weapons. There is a great danger that the possibility of this happening has been over-simplified.
If I do nothing else tonight, I want to disabuse not only some of my constituents but some of the people from other constituencies in Britain who have written to me recently on this issue. I do not believe that a few guerrillas in a garret in the hills in Cumbria can steal some fissile material and in no time at all produce a nuclear weapon. That is absolute rubbish. Most informed scientific opinion would agree with that. It would take informed nuclear scientists to produce a weapon from any stolen material—and that is entirely different from an ordinary group of terrorists hijacking nuclear material in transit.
It is also important to point out that there is an obvious difference between weapons-grade material and the material that is used in the civil programmes concerned with the nuclear generation of power. The suggestion that someone who might hijack a railway train carrying 30-ton flasks of irradiated fuel elements would cither be doing something sensible with it or be able to construct from it a nuclear weapon is again nonsense, and an Aunt Sally that we ought to knock down. There is virtually no possibility of that. After all, he would first have to put the stuff through the separation plant at Windscale, so that, again, is a fear of which we should disabuse the general public.
Not only the public, not only terrorists, but most people in this Chamber tonight


would, quite simply, have difficulty in deciding between a substance that might be plutonium, or one of its compounds, and Cumbrian rum butter. I do not think that anyone could claim that by looking at the substances he would be able to tell the difference. It is obviously also the case that in the event of a hijacking of fissile materials or, indeed, of installations, few, if any, terrorists finding themselves in that position and even threatening operatives would know whether an operative had released fissile material into the atmosphere. If somebody suddenly released active fissile material into this Chamber we would not see, smell or hear it. We would not drop dead immediately, either, much to the sorrow of some of our crities who may not be a million miles away from us at the moment. There is a grave danger, again, of over-simplifying the task that would face terrorists and the benefit that they would gain if they were to seek to take over a nuclear installation.
Presumably the four sites that have been designated have been designated because they are the most sensitive, in the general sense of our discussion of the Bill. I should like to ask a question about the sites, without going into my reasons for asking it. Why has Capenhurst not been included in the designated sites? I go no further than putting the question in that way for the moment.
Since we are concerned about terrorists, I am also a little worried that the provisions of the Bill do not include Northern Ireland. I know that there are good reasons and technicalities for this, in legislation, but if special constables wanted to pursue stolen nuclear material, that might be a route that they would want to take. I hope that we shall be told why it has not been possible to find some way of covering the territory of Northern Ireland.
The question of access to nuclear installations in this country has been raised in earlier speeches. One or two speakers referred to an incident at Windscale in March of last year, when members of Half-Life were invited to visit the site. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows what it is like to visit Windscale. He is one of the very few Ministers ever to have done so. It is

a matter of some regret that although Governments of both complexions have debated issues involving Windscale time without number, very few people have taken the trouble to go to the site. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his visit. As he will know, people are stopped at the gate and asked to identify themselves. The alleged incident involving members of Half-Life was given effect to by the fact that the man concerned was admitted having been recognised as a proper visitor to the site. In no sense could it be claimed to be a serious security incident. I suppose that it shows the danger of inviting half-wits—I am sorry, Half-Life—to the site in the first place.
I hope that terrorism and blackmail and the potential attack on nuclear sites and materials will not become a legitimate argument against the development of the nuclear energy industry. Such a thing would be outrageous. I hope that we can be assured that the Government would never accept this as an argument against the development of the nuclear energy industry. Such an idea must not be allowed to gain currency.
In discussing this issue, we have tremendous responsibilities, but that kind of approach to the development of the industry as a whole must not be accepted. The issue must obviously be taken seriously. I myself take it seriously. I note, like the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), from The Times of yesterday, that the so called Group of 7 nuclear-producing countries obviously take the issue seriously, since the production of security measures of the kind outlined in the Bill is being insisted upon, if we are to believe The Times. by members of the Group.
It is also important, as the Secretary of State has stressed, to remember that we are not talking about a private police force. I would have even more grave misgivings had mat been the case. It is important to stress that again and again. Obviously it may be suggested that in some way this would open the door to the arming of other forces. We would reject that argument out of hand. I know that no one will attempt to use this measure in that way, assuming that it is enacted.
I regret the necessity for this measure. I support the introduction of the proposal with great reluctance, but there is


no doubt that the rest of the House should support it too.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: No one questions the need for the strictest security and protection of nuclear material. Although the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has rightly pointed out that some of the dangers can be exaggerated and can lead to unreasonable fears in the minds of those who live near or work in these undertakings, or to pressures upon them, the fact is that the terrorist threat that we face has to be taken seriously.
We must not underestimate certain features of terrorists which go against normal logical arguments—their ruthlessness, their suicidal willingness in some cases to put their lives totally at risk to achieve their object, and in many cases their sophistication and ability to obtain advice of a high order when they want to carry out some evil undertaking. The dangers are apparent to us all.
Most of us, and I certainly, would be ready to accept that in certain circumstances this threat may require the use of armed police to guard nuclear material, either at particular installations or in transit. I also accept that armed police cannot necessarily be confined to those installations and, because of the very nature of transit, may have to go elsewhere to guard the material.
Having accepted that, we have to ask some fundamental questions about who precisely should do the job and what should be the accountability and the constitutional status of those who carry out the rôle, even though we admit it to be necessary. We have by no means finished the debate when we agree that there is an important and difficult job to do for the protection of the public. That is a matter of general agreement. We go on from there to see who should do the job and to what safeguards they should be subject in the general public interest when they do it.
There are difficulties enough about the use of private police forces, which I shall define later, but they are made almost insuperable by certain of the circumstances of this case. I use the term "private police forces" in no pejorative

sense. I use it because, although the Secretary of State does not think so, it is the common parlance in police discussions as a means of distinguishing between police forces which are subject to a police authority, such as the Metropolitan Police or a local police force under the Police Act, and those which are maintained by a body or authority, in many cases a Government body, such as the Ministry of Defence or the Atomic Energy Authority. I hope that no one will mind if I continue to use the term, as many people in the police force certainly use it, to mean nothing other than a body of constables who are not under a police authority as defined by the Police Act. That sense is generally understood, and it is recognised in police circles that there are many difficulties about private police forces.
Those difficulties are made much greater when the forces concerned have to operate outside particular installations and especially when, operating outside those installations, they come extensively into contact with members of the public. The difficulties are further increased and are almost insuperable when we arm a private police force, as will be found to be necessary as long as the installations that we are talking about tonight are guarded by such a force.
The whole issue of private police forces is under consideration at present as a matter for widespread discussion. It has been considered in the Police Bill. It has been considered in private legislation which has come before the House such as the British Railways Bill which extends the powers of the British Transport Police for a further period. Generally in police circles and among chief constables there is a great deal of discussion going on about precisely what the status and the extent of responsibility of such forces should be. I do not think that the Government should ignore that general air of disquiet and concern when we are involved in this debate.
We all accept that the civil police should have fairly wide powers and should be able to use firearms. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Whitehaven, we all know that our civil police are armed in a number of important situations. They have ready access to arms, subject to a variety of controls, and it is necessary that they should have


that access because of the dangers they face. We have managed to avoid the general arming of every policeman on the beat, thank goodness, and I hope that we continue to do so. However, there are many situations in which our police are armed.
We feel able to allow the arming of police for a number of reasons. First, the civil police—those maintained by police authorities—are accountable in a wide variety of ways either to the Home Secretary directly, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, or to a democratically-elected police authority if they are a local police force—and still, in some respects, accountable to the Home Secretary. The powers of the Home Secretary are fairly extensive, and for police forces outside the Metropolitan area they are supplemented by the powers of the police authorities, although there are areas in which a chief constable exercises discretion which he would not regard as subject to either form of accountability.
Secondly, the civil police have a widely-known and understood discipline and command structure. Thirdly, the instructions that they are given about the use of firearms and the general basis on which they may be used are fairly widely known and understood.
It used to be simple. Policemen were given firearms for their personal protection in situations in which that was necessary. We now know that they have been given firearms in cases which go beyond personal protection. A recent example was the Balcombe Street siege, when we saw police having to carry firearms—and we accepted this—in a rather different rôle. However, we know the basis on which it is done and the very extensive training to which the police are subject before they are allowed to make use of firearms.
Since the Police Act the police have had a complaints procedure which is known and understood. This House has seen fit to give a Second Reading to a Bill to strengthen and improve that complaints procedure. However, whether we look at the position as it is now or as it will be if the Bill is enacted, we find that the police have a complaints procedure. They may well soon have a complaints procedure with an independent element in it. It is possible now for a member

of the public to record his complaint against the police, to know precisely by what procedure it is to be dealt with and to see it through under that procedure.
When we look at the force that we are considering tonight, we face the fact that it does not meet all these tests in anything like the same way and that there are added problems about it. In the first place, its accountability is by no means as clear as that of the civil police forces. Before this debate I sought to clarify the situation as far as I could by asking the Secretary of State for Energy, who is the Minister responsible, what his responsibilities were. I tabled a Question asking whether he would
list his present responsibilities in respect of the police force of the Atomic Energy Authority.
The Under-Secretary explained that the constabulary was
a force of civil police attested under the Special Constables Act 1923 as extended by the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Functions) Act 1947 and the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 and is under the exclusive control of the Atomic Energy Authority. My right hon. Friend has no specific responsibilities but the Government take steps to satisfy themselves that the arrangements for safeguarding nuclear installations are adequate in the light of the circumstances prevailing.
I am sure that the Minister does satisfy himself about this matter. However, there is little basis in that answer for holding the Secretary of State accountable in the way in which the Home Secretary is accountable for the actions of the Metropolitan Police or even the limited way in which the Home Secretary is accountable for the work of provincial police forces. For example, we can ask the Home Secretary whether he will order an inquiry under the Police Act into an incident which has taken place in a provincial police force. In this case, however, there is nothing comparable to that, so the accountability is in some doubt.
Then there is the matter of the widely-known and understood command and discipline structure to which I have referred and which is characteristic of our civil police. Again, I asked the Secretary of State what the situation was in regard to the Atomic Energy Authority police. I asked him:
what is the current strength, in each rank, of the police force of the Atomic Energy Authority?


His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied:
It would not be in the national interest to give this information in detail. In general the current strength of the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary at all AEA and British Nuclear Fuels Limited establishments is approximately 400."—[Official Report, 23rd February 1976; Vol. 906, c. 18–19.]
The hon. Gentleman is becoming rather more coy than was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about a year ago when he said that 326 persons were employed by the force. The reply was rather less approximate then. Why cannot we know how many superintendents and how many sergeants there are, whether this rank structure or a different one obtains, and what pattern of command exists in the force?
I want to know what procedure governs the use of firearms and what instructions have been given to members of this police force of the Authority about their use. Again, we know a lot about the use of firearms by the civil police, but the Under-Secretary said that:
Individual instructions are issued to members of the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary about the use of firearms. It would not be in the public interest to disclose them."—[Official Report, 23rd February 1976; Vol. 906, c. 19.]
We have no more information. The Secretary of State told us tonight in great detail how he will have carefully to consider the standing orders governing the use of firearms. Clearly, however, he is not answerable to the House on those standing orders, and it is clear from the answer of his hon. Friend that we cannot establish, as we can with the civil police force, what general provision governs the use of firearms by this force. That is a matter for serious concern.
Then we come to the processing of complaints, a matter of serious concern in relation to the civil police, about which we have been careful to establish a procedure which we are now trying to improve. The answer I got from the hon. Gentleman to my Question was:
In addition to the constabulary's own internal procedures for handling complaints from the public the AEA Constabulary is subject to the jurisdiction of the Authority's management and to the civil police if any offence is suspected."—[Official Report, 25th February 1976; Vol. 906, c. 18.]
So are we all, thank goodness, but the idea of some registrable, identifiable pro-

cedure for dealing with complaints, much less any independent element in it, is not to be found here. It is extraordinary that in this complaints procedure neither the Home Secretary nor any independent body has responsibility. We are in a very strange situation.
When we add the special difficulties which can arise in relations between this force and the civil police, we realise what a dangerous area we are entering. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) drew attention to the position of a constable under Clause 3 of the Bill when considering the procedure where an officer is perhaps carrying arms either in hot pursuit or because he believes that there is in a particular locality somebody who he knows to be trying to obtain nuclear material.
One can imagine very difficult situations, particularly in hot pursuit, where the local poice force is brought in and asked either to help in or to sort out a situation in which a member of the Authority's police has used arms in circumstances in which the local police force would not have done so. I can tell the occupants of the Government Front Bench, in case they have not already established this for themselves, that there is disquiet among chief constables about this aspect of the Bill, and I shall be interested to know the extent of the consultations with chief constables and others on these aspects. No one is suggesting that the Atomic Energy Authority police will create or seek to create difficulties, but circumstances can arise when two quite different forces, operating under different rules, are trying to apprehend someone who is suspected. A difficult situation can arise especially if one force is carrying arms which the other force does not wish or does not see fit to use in the same situation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: To answer the question of the hon. Gentleman about what consultation there was with the Police Federation, may I say that to the best of my knowledge there was none?

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the work of the Police Federation better than any other hon. Member.
It is a sad commentary on the way the Bill has been brought before the


House without such consultation and that there is, I regret to see, no Home Office Minister on the Front Bench. We are discussing the regularisation of the arming of a police force which is bound to have extensive dealings with the civil police force for which the Home Office is responsible.
All these things illustrate a failure to grasp some of the difficulties which can arise and some of the problems with which we must deal before we go any further. I am convinced from fairly wide discussions which I have had that there is more disquiet among the civil police than the Government seem to realise. I do not see how I can ask my hon. Friends to support the Bill unless the Minister can give some direct undertakings far beyond those given by his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend showed himself sensitive to some of the difficulties and, I think, felt at the back of his mind that if he were on this side he would be drawing attention to some of the snags, probably in stronger and more critical terms than I have done.
I must ask the Minister to look at certain specific features and give some assurances about them if he expects our support. First, he must confirm or deny what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said about what consultations there were with the civil police before the Bill was brought before the House.
Why did not the Secretary of State do as was sensibly done in the case of the airports, in a situation which required special security protection and where special policing requirements had to be squared with the general responsibilities of the police? His right hon. Friend decided to take the principal airports and their police forces within the civil police. He did so without detriment to the members of the forces concerned. I was on the Committee and remember that elaborate arrangements were made. Perhaps they could be improved, but they can certainly be made. It would have been possible for us to take those responsible for what is, after all, a small force into the civil police in a way which would have disarmed most of the disquiet. I should like to know why that course was not chosen and whether it was seriously considered.
Are Ministers prepared to have written into the Bill, if they do not choose the course that I have described, a comparable degree of accountability to that to which the civil police are subject, either through the Secretary of State himself being answerable to the House on far more aspects of the work of the force than he is now or through the Home Secretary assuming a rôle in relation to this force which might be just as appropriate as is his existing rôle? The Secretary of State has responsibility for energy and for ensuring that our energy requirements have as much protection as they require, but the Home Secretary's responsibilities cover a wider range.
The impression given by the answers that I have received is that the Secretary of State sees his rôle as ensuring adequate policing for the installations for which he is responsible, and it is right that he should. But police responsibilities go beyond that and they include ensuring that the public are satisfactorily protected and that the relations between police forces work satisfactorily. That area of responsibility is traditionally for the Home Office. Either the Secretary of State must accept more of it or the Home Office must become involved here.
Is the Minister prepared to give more information on the command structure and the firearms procedures? I should also like some indication of whether he will seek to apply the Police Bill to this force. That Bill, currently before the House, included on Second Reading and may well continue to include a clause enabling private police forces—I think that the term is used in the Bill, and it includes this force as a possibility—to fall within the complaints procedure that it establishes.
Some forces have already given an indication that they intend to do precisely that. The British Transport Police has clearly said that it wishes to fall within whatever complaints procedure is ultimately chosen for the civil police. I welcome and commend that decision, and it is on that basis that I have withdrawn a proposed instruction on another Bill. I hope the Minister will make it clear that he is prepared in the same way to see that this force is subject to whatever complaints procedure the House decides is right and necessary for the police.
In all these respects, we must ensure either that the civil police whom we know and trust have the responsibility for this difficult task or that a force which is subject to similar constraints and disciplines, and which can therefore be held in the same respect by the public, is created for the purpose.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall take up some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We all accept that there is a danger from terrorism, that this concerns many public facilities and that obviously nuclear-based installations are at risk. Because of this risk there is a need to take precautions.
I may part company with the Government on the issue of whether the Bill gives the right answers to the problems arising today. Two principles are involved. The first is the rôle of the private police forces, the extension of such police forces into other realms of activity and their relationship with the civil police, which are normally organised on a local basis. The second principle is that of arming the police in connection with their duties on site or on the move, taking convoys of nuclear or fissile materials from one area to another.
I was surprised to hear from the Secretary of State that apparently no steps have been taken to safeguard nuclear power stations. The easiest course for people intending to commit acts of terrorism is to seek out sensitive targets, among which are nuclear power stations. Any ignorance about the lack of defence of power stations has been rectified tonight. I understand the need for powers to provide for the security of power stations, both those which deal with plutonium products, which have strategic and dangerous qualities, and conventional power stations.
There are two matters in the Bill apart from the need for action exemplified by the increase in such installations and the convoying of materials. Both these matters raise matters of principle. Recently the main trend has been towards an extension of the powers of the civil police. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there has been discussion about the relationship of the

special police forces and talk about their integration with the civil police. That has happened with the airports police and I hoped that that trend would continue. In the early days of Glasgow Airport, when I prosecuted in the minor courts and had dealings with the Glasgow Airport police, I was dissatisfied with the standard of that police force, but that was in the early days before the force gained the necessary experience. The Atomic Energy Authority police have been in existence since 1955 and they are not thought to have a low standard.
In argument, the Secretary of State referred to the Ministry of Defence police force which guards military convoys and used it as a parallel case. He said that this example was being followed in the Bill. I do not wish to take that parallel too far, because there are special reasons why there should be defence security. No doubt the nuclear products being conveyed are of a dangerous nature. Defence projects and activities have always been screened more securely than civil activities.
The Atomic Energy Authority is seeking to have its own police force and to adopt certain of the powers and duties which the Ministry of Defence police have. Rather than the adoption of the parallel of Ministry of Defence police, we may see the development of a para-military police force organised on a national basis. It could be said that this would be the first sign of the emergence of a gendarmery inside the United Kingdom.
Let us follow the military example further. It is perfectly true that the military authorities have their own system of judiciary in the form of their courts-martial. However, no one would suggest that we should adopt courts-martial for civil purposes. It is essential that we keep to the guidelines which have been accepted over many generations, namely, that there should be a clear division between what is organised on a military and on a civil basis.
In the course of my examination of the Bill I tried to discover the attitude of the police. I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who deals with home affairs had discussions with the Chief Officers Association in Scotland. I should like to ask certain questions at a later time about those discussions.
However, I have received information from the Police Federation. First, it made the point that it is generally against the arming of the police. Where, however, it considers that that is necessary in a given situation—tonight we have dealt with the dangers which can come from a terrorist attack on a quantity of nuclear materials—it takes the view that the civil police should provide the protection. The Police Federation has made it clear that it has specialists in weaponry who have been trained along the lines which the police have followed for many years. It has constables and other officers who are also experienced in police disciplines. In my view that is essential.
Secondly, the Police Federation fears that there is a danger of escalation if the use of arms is adopted by other bodies. It fears that it will receive more strenuous pressure than in the past to carry arms since we live in troubled days. The Police Federation also fears that the rôle of the civil police will be undermined by the existence of this police force which will be able to travel from one area to another. In the past it has been accepted as a principle in connection with the British Transport Police and other bodies, that there could be special police forces to guard special situations. However, these situations have, generally speaking, been of a static nature. In other words, the police have been at airports or railway stations and their powers have been limited. Here for the first time the police force of the Atomic Energy Authority will be able to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It will move away from the static situation which has prevailed hitherto and in the course of its activities in connection with the Bill it will move from one police district to another.
Although the Secretary of State can prove that there is a danger which can face nuclear installations and convoys of fissile products, it has not been proved during the debate that the proposals which the Government have brought forward will necessarily be effective. Not only are they dangerous by introducing new trends, but they can run into all sorts of other difficulties.
As a result of the consultations with the chief constables—I am not sure whether there were also con-

sultations with the Police Federation—were the chief constables happy with the Government's proposals? Did the Government consider leaving the duties of escorting convoys to the civil police? They do a considerable amount of this work, sometimes in less dangerous circumstances than dealing with nuclear materials, such as the convoying of heavy goods wagons. Does the Minister consider it right that weapons should be carried at all times by the AEA police when convoying the materials? Does he not accept that these weapons should be carried only when information is received that there is likely to be a real hazard to a convoy? By that I do not mean having specific knowledge that a convoy will be hit, because obviously steps would then be taken to stop the convoy from travelling. I am talking about the situation where there is a general danger rather than in the broad circumstances mentioned by the Secretary of State.
If shooting incidents occur, who will be responsible for investigating them? Will it be the civil police authorities, and will the civil police have the duty in Scotland to report the circumstances to the Crown Office or to the procurator fiscal in the district concerned? If there is pursuit after materials have been removed, who would be responsible for the co-ordination of the chase? Here we get into some of the real difficulties. Take the example of a convoy running from Dounreay to Windscale, a journey of several hundred miles. It will pass through several police districts, of which the AEA police will know very little concerning the terrain and the police forces which operate there, and in the heat of the moment they might be placed in a quandary about how a local force operates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I am worried about the trend of the hon. Member's speech. He seems to be suggesting that we are trying to introduce some new method in which the AEA police will for the first time undertake escort duties on convoys. They have always escorted convoys between Dounreay and Wind-scale and any other establishment in Britain. The difference is that now, if the House chooses to pass the Bill, they will be armed. Contrary to what the


hon. Member seems to suggest, the civilian police have not carried out these escort duties in the past.

Mr. Wilson: If the Under-Secretary had forborne a little, I would have advised him that I was well aware of that situation. With this sort of situation, would it not be better that, instead of the AEA police escorting the convoy, the escort should be arranged through the civil police, who would provide the necessary protection? The point I am trying to make is this. If my suggestion were adopted, the escorting police would be passing through their own areas and would thus know them far better than would the AEA constabulary. They would be in a better position to deal with any emergencies because they would know the emergency network. The AEA police, on the other hand, would have to call in the civil police to help them. In bringing in the civil police force there might be a danger of confusion about coordination and control of the operations.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Perhaps the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising is more fundamentally underlined in my constituency, which has within it the only nuclear power station in the United Kingdom which is in the centre of a total urbanised area, an area in which the civil police authorities would be closely concerned. In that circumstance Clause 3 raises some problems.

Mr. Wilson: I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am glad that he was able to use the experience which he has in his constituency to underline my argument. The same problem could arise in remote areas with small populations.
If the AEA police experienced difficulties in the course of their convoying operations, would the civil police be permitted to intervene? Would guidelines and provisions be worked out in cooperation with the two forces?
There is no evidence to my mind that the civil police could not provide the service and perform the duties which are already undertaken by the AEA police. I think that they would be able to do the job equally well because of their existing position. If there were to be any arming, it would be far better for arms to be carried by a police force which was under

democratic supervision. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has already said that there is a danger that the Authority police will be responsible to no one, not even to the Secretary of State for Energy.
I believe that the Bill creates a dangerous precedent. I do not think it provides the answer which is sought to an admittedly serious problem. Unless the Minister can offer some assurance on the many points which are at issue, including the substantial and dangerous powers which exist in Clause 3, my hon. Friends and I may be forced to divide the House.
We concede that there is a need to safeguard convoys of fissile material, but we feel that if the Authority police are to be given that job and the power of arming, such provision should be confined to the immediate vicinity of power stations or research plants where the risk is greatest. We feel that the normal convoy operations, whether or not there is arming, should be undertaken by the civil police.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I too, give a hesitant welcome to the Bill. It is a strange sort of Bill, as it is the product of two Ministries. I think it would have been better if it had been in the hands of one Ministry. I am inclined to agree that it should have been a Home Office Bill rather than this mixed child.
I reinforce the questions that have been put by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the number of constables involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannan) said that he understood the number to be about 400. At no time did the Secretary of State volunteer that information.

Mr. Bean: I am sorry if I did not refer to the number involved. In fact, I have answered questions about the size of the force. I think that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) obtained his information from an answer that I supplied. I have been interrogated by a number of hon. Members and I have tried to give the House information in anticipation of the debate.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it does not lessen my fears about the composition of the Bill and about the police force that we are establishing and its powers.

Mr. Beith: But the Secretary of State was unable and unwilling, in the general public interest, to give any indication of the number of officers, their ranks or their command structure.

Mr. Farr: Having given way twice before I have really got into my speech, I hope the House will forgive me if I go ahead with my contribution.
1 am a little unhappy about the contents of the Bill and the ability of the AEA police force to be able to move around the country in an armed state in hot pursuit or on suspicion in the course of their duty. Many of the points that have been raised will have to be tackled in Committee, but one cannot give constables the power to possess firearms without any certificates or other authority under the 1968 Act—certainly not without being a little more specific about the situation. What types of firearm will they possess—air rifles, machine guns, revolvers or rifles? What is the quantity? Although the Secretary of State may feel it a little unfair to attack the Bill in that respect, I know that if the Home Secretary had been on the Front Bench he would have understood the reasoning behind that kind of questioning.
The police are most rigorous in the sense that certificate holders must give details of the weapons which they are entitled to possess. This House cannot possibly do its duty and allow the Bill to go through in this fashion, which apparently will allow these constables and the chief constable to pile up arms, ranging from pea pistols to howitzers, and unlimited amounts of ammunition, without our being given more specific details.
I asked the Secretary of State whether the force, in its new rôle, will have to possess firearm certificates and whether it will be allowed to possess weapons when off duty. I was glad to hear that that was not the case, and that in every case these weapons will be stored, and that when an officer goes off duty the weapon will be returned to a stockpile or armoury for safe keeping, as should happen.
What is wrong with the present system? At present, armed guards are issued with firearm certificates entitling them to hold weapons of specified calibres. That system appears to have worked well in the past. Is there not a strong case for treat-

ing the constables covered by this Bill in the same way as we treat police at civil airports? Why do we need to accord special power and importance to AEA police?
I agree with the Secretary of State's view that the Authority is the custodian of highly significant and important material. Nevertheless, there are custodians of other significant and important material who do not possess these powers. I have in mind those who look after germ and biological research stations. Those stations, in their way, are just as vulnerable to terrorists. Those stations are attractive targets for the madman. Surely in Committee a case could be made out for giving similar powers to the guards on those establishments. I am surprised that a body of several hundred men should have been freed from firearm certification in such a facile way when ordinary, law-abiding citizens who possess firearm certificates are being leant on by police all over the country.
Clause 3 gives these constables power to go, with uncertificated weapons, wherever they think necessary in the course of their duty. It is a harsh contrast when one compares that situation with the situation of the many civilian firearm holders who are being badgered from time to time by police authorities. When people wish to renew licences for rifles used for target or other practice, many chief constables require the applicants to show that they have places where they can use the rifles. If a person cannot do that, for example, by producing the consent of a landowner to the rifle being used on his land, the certificate is withdrawn.
It is a strange anomaly that we should allow these special constables to roam around the countryside with unlicensed weapons while the police adopt a very energetic attitude towards the holders of legitimately licensed firearms. For example, the President of the Anglia Sportng Rifle and Pistol Club, Mr. Cunningham, is awaiting trial on a charge that he had in his possession three pistols which, as the property of the club, should have been in the possession of the secretary, not the president. The police kept him confined to a cell for four days while investigating his credentials, even though he had been president of the club for nine years. When he appeared in court,


he was handcuffed and was photographed in that situation.
It is strange that we should give these powers to people who are not members of a civil police force and have never before enjoyed anything like these powers. Many alterations will have to be made in Committee to make this Bill acceptable to many of us.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I came here to give the Bill a general welcome. That is still my intention, but my confidence has been a little shaken as speech after speech has criticised the Bill. The arming of the AEA special constables is an important matter, which should not be taken lightly. I know that the Government considered it very carefully. It is most important we should not send a message of great fear or exaggeration from this House. We do not want the public to become alarmed that some major disaster is likely to happen. The Government are taking prudent steps to prevent anything of that nature occurring. I had the opportunity of going to Nagasaki and Hiroshima shortly after the atomic bombs had been dropped, so I have had experience of the ultimate disaster. That is why I am keen that the Government should take steps to make certain that disaster on that scale should never happen again.
I accept that we must take these steps in the case of a hijacking or a serious act of terrorism, but I am not clear why we should differentiate between nuclear establishments. The Secretary of State mentioned four establishments which are not named in the Bill. Are those four establishments included because of the particular type of operation they perform, or the type of fuel used?
We should also be considering nuclear power stations. I am concerned about the Magnox station at Chapelcross. Under Clause 2 powers are given to British Nuclear Fuels to have armed police. I cannot understand why, when British Nuclear Fuels runs Chapelcross—and for all I know other power stations—it should not be eligible to have there an establishment of armed police. I know that the Magnox nuclear power station is particularly safe, but that may not be known to terrorists. I do not want terrorists to operate near any power sta-

tion. All power stations should have well-armed and trained guards to prevent activity by terrorists. I ask the Minister to explain why all nuclear stations, whatever their operation, are not included.
How will the position of British Nuclear Fuels and Uneco be written into Clause 2? That may be covered by reference to previous Acts, but it would be much clearer and easier to understand if it were clearly established in the clause.
I have the highest regard for the competence and authority of the chief constables and the police forces generally. I have not the slightest doubt that in this area—which has been over-criticised tonight—there will be no major problem of co-ordination between the chief constable and whoever is in local command of the special constabulary. I feel sure that an efficient and acceptable system can be organised.
When nuclear fuel is in transit, problems may arise because the vehicle will be moving from one police area to another, but with our sophisticated radio system I see no major problem here, as long as it is clear who is in command if an incident should occur. Is the chief constable to take over immediately something happens, or is one of the armed special constabulary to remain in control during the incident? That should be clarified, and the public should know, because it could cause an immense degree of apprehension if a clear channel of command were not laid down.
Some of the problems referred to by hon. Members have gone far too far in establishing a fear of how the system is to work. I should be happy to see the Bill proceed into Committee because it can only be in the interests of the general public that our nuclear establishments should be guarded as closely, efficiently and effectively as possible. This Bill is a step in the right direction.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I declare an interest, in that I have a connection with the Police Federation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on his very capable and constructive speech and on the way in which he has approached the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. He said that prevention is


better than cure, and in a debate in which there have been certain science fiction overtones, homely language of that kind is important. My view is that a stitch in time can save nine. That is the right approach to the Bill.
This is in many senses not a minor Bill. It is a major Bill, because of the enormity of the threat against which we are seeking to guard ourselves. It is a significant Bill, because it extends the powers of one special police force, in the sense that its members will now have the right and the duty to go anythere they like on suspicion, carrying weapons and exercising the powers of special constables. I cannot say that I like that. I must say that I accept it.
The threat that we are seeking to guard against comes from terrorists, from fanatics and from—may I say it?—nut cases. It could also come from armed criminal gunmen stealing fissile material for gain. The ways in which nuclear power stations could be put at risk can be divided broadly into the categories of sabotage, theft of materials in transit, and, conceivably, blackmail by occupation. I shall deal only with the question of sabotage.
In many cases I suppose that it would happen by bombing. I say "bombing", because it is important to realise just how far bombing has become part of the scene. At the time of the Shepherds Bush murders, a bomb in Britain was an incident that occasioned the whole nation to pause, but we have had 165 bomb explosions by armed terrorists on this side of the Irish Sea in the last two years.
On 28th August, the bomb at Caterham caused 33 casualties; on 29th August, one person was killed in Kensington Church Street; on 5th September, two were killed and 63 injured at the Hilton Hotel; on 22nd September, three people were injured in Portman Square; on 9th October, at Green Park, one person was killed and 17 injured; on 13th October, Lockets Restaurant was bombed, but fortunately no one was injured; on 15th October, at Camden Hill, one person died; on 9th November, there was the incident at Wilton Square; on 12th November, at Scott's Restaurant, one person was killed and 15 injured; on 18th November, in Walton Street, two were killed and 19 injured.
I need not go on. The pattern of bombing has arrived. We live in that kind of a Britain. Therefore, the Government are entirely right to seek to guard effectively against the bombing of some of the most dangerous installations in our country. In the face of this kind of rising terror, the police have had to be provided with weapons.
Since I have a connection with the police, I say to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham)—and, indeed, to the Secretary of State—that we are quite complacent and mistaken if we believe that Britain still has an unarmed police force. The British police are armed. I am in no way indiscreet if I indicate the extent to which they are armed. Between 1970 and 1973 guns were issued for use to the police on an average of 100 times every week. That was during the peaceful period. Since 1973, the number of times that guns have been issued to the police has risen to a very much higher figure. In London more than 5,000 police posts are armed. In the country as a whole more than 15 per cent. of all our serving officers, members of the Federation, have already completed their marksmen's training. I am very glad that they have.
The Metropolitan Police has its Special Branch. It also has—they are less known—the Personal Protection Squad, the Diplomatic Protection Squad, and the SPG. They are not just armed with the odd pistol; some are armed with the Ingram and the Uzzi sub-machine guns. It is time the House recognised that we no longer have an unarmed police. I wish we did. Our police, unfortunately, now have regular and necessary access to weapons.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I recognise the truth of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Like him, and no doubt everyone else in the House, I regret it, but I was referring not to the kind of situation that he was describing but to the permanent carrying of the police of arms, throughout all their normal duty hours. That is different from what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Griffiths: There is no such thing as normal routine police duty. There is a risk of violence at all stages, and the police must now have easy and frequent


access to guns. We all wish they did not have to.
I turn to the only point in the Bill on which I wish to press the hon. Gentleman before he replies. Clause 3, on my reading, allows any special constable to go anywhere he likes on suspicion. He does not need to be investigating a theft. He needs only to suspect that in some part of the country someone has been engaged in a theft.
It is an important decision to allow special constables from nuclear power stations to go armed anywhere in the country on suspicion. This matter will need to be looked at carefully in Committee, because it is bound to raise the question of the exact relationship between these constables and the local police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said that it is essential to know who is in charge. The answer, I am sure, must be that the chief officer is in charge. Anyone coming in from the nuclear police will, for the purpose of the civil peace of the area, be effectively under the command of the chief officer. There is no way in which he cannot be. But the exact relationship needs to be made very plain.
Then there is the question of intelligence. If we act upon suspicion in searching out a potential law breaker, information in the possession of the local police is absolutely critical in discovering the potential criminal. I hope that this matter of the relationship between the special constabulary and the local police will be cleared up in Committee.
I do not like this proliferation of special police forces—private police forces—all over the country. We have far too many of them in both the private sector and the public sector. I should very much prefer to see the general civil police provided with the numbers, the equipment and the support that they need to take care of the Queen's peace, wherever and however it is threatened. It is the general policing of the country that we should be supporting, as I am sure all hon. Members support it, and although I accept that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves this Bill ought to go through, I hope that it carries with it the codicil that at the same time we should be giving the general police all the support that they

need to deal with the great strains that a violent society now places upon them.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) spoke with his customary eloquence and his special authority on this topic in a way which reinforced the widespread distaste which exists throughout the House that a measure of this kind should be necessary. But, as he said, it was a question not of whether we liked the measure but of whether we accepted it. I want to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in saying that we accept this measure, and my hon. Friend, in an extremely elegant and pertinacious manner, elaborated exactly the balance of factors which are bound to exercise the House when it considers legislation of this kind.
I comment briefly upon the three main considerations which have run as themes through this Second Reading debate. First, there has been the anxiety lest the traditional regard for civil liberties which lies at the heart of so much of the public's attitude is being set aside when we bear in mind the real and growing threat which is now represented by terrorist action. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) was right when he said that the range of terrorist weapons and the range of terrorist ambition will eventually encompass the items which are included in this legislation.
I have no hesitation, although no pleasure, in saying that the balance of my judgment is that this is an area where concern for the legitimate protection of the public admits a diminution of what traditionally would be regarded as an inalienable preserve of civil liberty.
Secondly, and flowing directly from that consideration, is the concern for the demarcation with the police of the Atomic Energy Authority's special constables. It seemed to me that the point was made most effectively and constructively by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who raised some questions which, I am sure, will concern hon Members when this legislation proceeds to Committee.
I also think that we should be wise to take note of the concern of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that this perhaps establishes a principle which could lead to a wider application or, to use his word, an escalation which could cause genuine anxiety. The House also will have noted the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—in the absence of the libertarian elements of the Tribune Group, perhaps the only genuine representative in the debate of a strand of libertarian concern which should properly be present in debates of this kind.
That takes me to the third point, which is whether the legislation as currently drawn goes wide enough or whether it should be extended to embrace power stations. This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. I have no doubt that this matter could reasonably occupy hon. Members once again when this legislation proceeds to Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, there is a whole range of questions and topics which he wishes to pursue in Committee. I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection will have noted his anxiety to serve the House in this respect.
The Committee stage is important because it will enable rather more detailed public discussion, which I know the Secretary of State would welcome and which was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth). I only hope, from the experience which we had on Monday when we debated nuclear safety, that the concern in this House for wider public discussion will be mirrored in the Press. One of the distressing aspects of Monday's debate was that not one word, let alone one sentence, appeared in either the Financial Times or The Guardian. If the quality end of Fleet Street is not prepared to take an interest in these matters, the field is open for the more sensational treatment.
My final consideration turns on the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. He left us, as ever, tantalised as to whether the Scottish National Party

would divide the House against this legislation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is not present to hear my remarks because I regard him as bearing the great grey hairs of wisdom in a party which, on the whole, has a number of striplings. I had hoped that I could appeal to him to restrain the potential exuberance of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
I say to the Scottish National Party that it is one thing to have reservations about this legislation and to want to examine much more closely the relationship between the traditional constabulary and the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary but that it is quite another thing to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill—not to vote against it on a reasoned amendment, but to vote against it pure and simple. I know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Dundee, East does not want his party to be tarred with even one bristle of the Scottish Tartan Army brush—[Interruption.] Yes, it is a fair point to make when hon. Members undertake certain actions.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—

Mr. Biffen: My final words will be an appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to force a Division on the Bill but to pursue his objectives during the Committee stage.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the hon. Gentleman to give way when he launched into an attack—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately—or fortunately—that is not a point of order.

9.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): In the time at my disposal I should like to start on the note mentioned by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I hope that tonight hon. Members will realise the importance and significance of the Bill. I hope that they will also realise that I am probably incapable of answering adequately many of the points that they have raised, and in any case I probably shall not have the time. However, we shall find it appropriate to address ourselves to these points in Committee.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) may seem mindful of opposing the Bill. However, I think that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said that we regret having to bring in the Bill and to support it. To some extent we ought to be frank with each other philosophically and admit that the Bill is in one sense a defeat. It is a defeat because we must do these things. When we pass certain laws, they are a confession of defeat and an acknowledgement that we have found ourselves in a situation in which people cannot live together in peace. Therefore, we must do such things in the interests of maintaining discipline in our society. I make that appeal to any hon. Member who is disposed to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that if one forms the reasoned view that the Bill as presently framed is fundamentally wrong, the appropriate thing to do is to vote against it and then to ask the Government to bring in a revised Bill?

Mr. Eadie: I know the hon. Gentleman's confusion about the ways of the House, but that seems to me to be a rather strange concept of parliamentary discussion. Indeed, I find it strange that the hon. Member is now adopting a notion about the way in which he should approach the Bill before I have had the opportunity to try to reply to some of the points that he has made. I do not like that sort of preconceived argument. It is not within the traditions of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) to some extent set the tone for the debate. He expressed reservations and said that he was not happy with the Bill. He is very knowledgeable in this sphere. He put forward the point that has concerned many hon. Members, and asked why the provisions of the Bill did not cover nuclear power stations. We considered the question of commercial nuclear power stations and whether they should be protected by armed guards. We decided that it was not necessary at present, although the situation is being kept under review. I could go on to deal with some of my hon. Friend's remarks about the fissile material within such power stations. However, at present we believe that there

is not the danger there that we associate with the other sites which we have tried to identify, although we shall probably want to return to this matter in Committee.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) raised the question of consultation, which is very important and has been raised frequently during the debate. There has been full consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary Association—the union to which the AEA police belong—about the proposed arming. It has been accepted by the association. We have also had full consultations about the arming of the Atomic Energy Authority police, with the staff representatives on the sites which the armed police will guard. There has also been Joint Industrial Council consultation at national level. I understand that the employees concerned accept the need for arming the constabulary.
The chief constables of the local forces for the areas in which Harwell, Winfrith, Windscale and Dounreay stand have been kept fully in the picture on the proposed arming. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East will note that point. They are closely involved in the arrangements for the protection of sites against terrorist or criminal activity.
I shall move from the question of consultation to deal with the question of automatic weapons, raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I can tell him that the Bill would give the AEA police access to whatever types of weapons were appropriate for their guarding duties. Generally, pistols will be carried, as with other police forces. Heavier, single-shot weapons could be available if needed. The constabulary will also be entitled to carry automatic weapons, such as sub-machine guns. This power is open to other police forces, although none enjoys it at present. It is likely, however, that terrorists making an attack upon a nuclear site would use such weapons and it is the intention that automatic weapons should be available for use by police guarding sites, if necessary.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East raised operational points. I hope that I did not misjudge him earlier in saying that he had preconceived notions. He raised some very important points, which should be put as forcibly as possible in Committee, where they will deserve an


answer and an explanation. One point he raised related to the reaction of the Scottish Chief Constables Association. I am very pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that that Association has been consulted in depth by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. The Association has indicated that chief constables accept the need to arm the AEA police. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that in practice the AEA police in Scotland who will be armed are at Dounreay, in the far North. As he posed the question, I presumed that it was one of substance, and I hope that he will accept that I am giving a factual statement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) also raised points. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West was right in saying that the public have a right to know. I thought that my right hon. Friend tried to make this clear in opening the debate. The hon. Gentleman's point was that there should be continuous review, and in any democratic society there must be, in dealing with issues such as this. My

hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven asked why Capenhurst was not included. We do not see Capenhurst as a problem in terms of significant holdings of dangerous fissile material such as plutonium, and therefore we do not see a need for armed guards there at present—but, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, we shall continue to keep the position under review. I realise that in the time available—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that there is a motion taking the business to any hour, so that the Minister does not have to stop at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: It is on the Paper.

Mr. Eadie: I told the House that I probably would not be able to reply to some of the main points. I also give the House assurances that there are Committee points that will be dealt with later. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 11.

Division No. 72]
AYES
[10 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Palmer, Arthur


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John


Atkinson, Norman
[...]Cvn, Dr Alan
Parkinson, Cecil


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Goodhew, Victor
Parry, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Biffen, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Perry, Ernest


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gray Hamish
Price, William (Rugby)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Eldon
Radice, Giles


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hannam, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Roderick, Caerwyn


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Sandelson, Neville


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Coleman, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James
Stoddart, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


Delargy, Hugh
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Ward, Michael


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max
Weatherill, Bernard


Eadle, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Elliott, Sir William
Mawby, Ray
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Millan, Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woof, Robert


English, Michael
Monro, Hector
Young, David (Bolton E)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Ovenden, John
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Faulds, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Joseph Harper




NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Beith, A. J.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Crawford, Douglas
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


MacCormick, Iain
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Douglas Henderson and


Raid, George
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Richard Wainwright.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING DATES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING DATES) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having

been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to school-leaving dates, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Family Allowances Act 1965 and the Social Security Act 1975 which is attributable to—

(a) provisions whereby a person who has attained the upper limit of compulsory school age can be treated for the purposes of the said Act of 1965 as being under that limit until a later date; and

(b) provisions substituting the age of 16 for school-leaving age in sections 4(2)(a), 7(1) and 8(1) of the said Act of 1973-[Mr. Gerry Fowler.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

SEA FISHERIES

That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c), the Standing Committee considering Commission Document No. R/1131/75 relating to Forestry Measures shall be able to sit for up to two and a half hours after the commencement of its proceedings.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY

Ordered,

That Sir William Elliott be discharged from the Select Committee on Violence in the Family and that Mr. William Rees-Davies be added.—[Mr. Walter Harrison]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (DURHAM COAST)

10.11 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: The subject of this debate is of vital importance to the coal industry in the constituency of Houghton-le-Spring and especially to the people of the township of Seaham.
I make it clear at the outset that my references to the coal-mining industry on the Durham coast will be confined to the three collieries which lie within my constituency. I think it is worthy of note that for almost two decades the economic problems of the Northern Region have been seriously exacerbated by massive contractions in the coal-mining industry. In the Durham coalfield alone, the number of working pits declined from 127 to 27 between 1947 and March 1974, with an accompanying colossal reduction in manpower from 148,676 to 38,281, due largely to exhaustion of reserves and uneconomic working.
It must also be placed on record that further individual closures have occurred since March 1974 and that the industry as a whole has been conditioned to accept the ultimate and fairly early withdrawal of all activity to the line of coastal pits in Durham and Northumberland.
In March 1973 the National Coal Board publicly announced with great jubilation its plan to invest immediately more than £1 million in a tunnelling project to prove vast resources of undersea coking coal reserves lying beyond a known geological barrier some two to three miles offshore.
Described by the mining fraternity as Zone 29, this 10-mile-square coalfield, estimated to contain about 50 million tons of coking coal, forms part of the southern section of the 550 million tons of reserves already proved in the 1960s by the National Coal Board's offshore drilling programme.
The neighbouring collieries of Dawdon and Vane Tempest, ideally located on

the seashore, highly modernised, with a total work force of 3,800 men and already producing combined annual outputs of 2¼ million tons, began the monumental task of boring twin drivages through the sea faults and the Seaham faults towards the enormous undersea bonanza.
Spurred as they were by freely-expressed confidence in their future, highly-skilled teams have worked with commendable zeal. The Vane Tempest team claims to have progressed more than half-way towards its ultimate objective at an acknowledged expenditure of only £500,000 of the £1 million-plus that the National Coal Board decided to invest in 1973.
Then, in July 1975, out of the blue, the NCB decided that the Vane Tempest project would have to be abandoned, this decision being confirmed in October 1975. The dramatic change thus brought about in NCB policy arose from the fact that more recent borings at sea had produced evidence of the existence of a much more considerable geological problem in the shape of a dome structure rising steeply towards the sea bed. Subsequent borings revealed that part of the coal measures had been eroded and overIain by Permian measures. The obvious conclusion is that the coal cannot be reached as quickly as was first anticipated. This induced a morale-shattering impact on the labour force involved with the realisation that the life of a modern pit would be drastically shortened if the NCB's argument of prohibitive additional capital expenditure was to be accepted.
The latest estimates of the cost of reaching these rich coal resources vary between £5 million and £10 million. The latter figure apparently includes some development costs and is based upon the NUM-sponsored geological survey, the conclusion of which is to the effect that
there is an indeterminate amount of coal of varying quality in three seams of a workable section at the No. 18 borehole east of the anticline which would need some 10 miles of drivage and up to £10m. of capital.
The pertinent question which must then logically be asked, since the geological barrier is not by any means impenetrable, is whether it is in the best interests of the industry and the nation for the NCB to take an irrevocable decision permanently to freeze the vast amount of


coking coal lying in the sea opposite the Vane Tempest Colliery.
Recalling that the initial planning for the exploitation of these resources estimated an annual production of 600,000 tons from the Vane Tempest Colliery, primarily to feed the Redcar steel complex, I wonder what would then be the cost to the nation and the industry of the replacement of this volume of coal. What estimate has the NCB made of coking coal requirements over the next few years? In the event of permanent immobilisation of these resources, will it become necessary to import coking coal from abroad or even from other parts of the United Kingdom? What discussions has the Board initiated with the European Coal and Steel Community on the quantity of coking coal required in the context of a European energy policy? Has the Board considered making representations to the ECSC for grants and loans to help the exploratory and extractive projects?
I fully appreciate the difficulty of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in answering these questions and the statutory limitations imposed upon the Department in intervening in the management functions of the NCB, a factor which has prevented me from tabling Questions on the subject to the Secretary of State for answer on the Floor of the House. This subject is nevertheless of such tremendous importance that it merits urgent discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the Chairman of the NCB. In the best interests of morale and sound industrial relations, I further earnestly suggest that transfers to other pits and redundancies be deferred until top-level consultation has been exhausted and an unequivocal statement on undersea operations has been issued by the Board.
The extensively-declining morale of the labour force in this important section of the mining industry in my constituency cannot be stressed too much. Until June 1975 Vane Tempest, one of the newer collieries in the coalfield, was receiving miners decanted from the Seaham Colliery a short distance up the road. That is in accord with the planned reduction of the labour force from a peak of 962

men, a reduction arising from the NCB's refusal to invest a modest £800,000 for the exploitation of Seam C. The men, in common with many more who were transferred from other pits which had closed, were assured that Vane Tempest was a long-life colliery.
I appreciate that there is no possibility of the immediate closure of either pit. The socio-economic problems already arising from reducing labour forces will be seriously compounded if either pit—or both—is the subject of advance closure due to premature and probably unwise investment decisions at the present time. That is especially so when increasing emphasis is quite properly being laid on the importance of discovering new coal deposits, on full capitalisation of all available resources and on maximum production from the labour force.
The common denominator in the vast majority of pit closures has been the exhaustion of reserves but such is not the case in the Seaham area. Conversely there is a positive embarrassment of riches, although quantitatively somewhat undefined. We know that the independent geological survey carried out by the NUM in April 1975 revealed that 3 million tons of coal remained in reserve in Seam C at Seaham Colliery, a seam formerly worked from the now defunct Ryhope Colliery presently being mined from Murton Colliery and provenly accessible from Seaham provided that the necessary investment is sanctioned by the National Coal Board.
It has to be accepted that Seam C is also capable of exploitation from the Vane Tempest Colliery. That is a matter which only the National Coal Board can decide, a decision upon which I do not intend to speculate.
It is evident that there is an undeniably huge quantity of coal to the seaward side of the fault. A Sunderland Echo report of 25th February states:
Both the miners' lodge and the NCB agree that there is coal to be mined there but the fault was found to be blocking the way.
The impression is thus created that the reserves are irrecoverable because of inaccessibility due to geological structures. But that is not so. The National Coal


Board's case is that the cost of exploration in the new situation is too high because of the greater distance of drivages.
On the assumption, which I sincerely trust is correct, that the Dawdon Colliery drivage is to be allowed to continue, the board has a clear responsibility to ascertain the full extent of workable reserves in Zone 29, if necessary by putting down further boreholes at sea, and most certainly investing the estimated £10 million in the Vane Tempest driveway, the absolute maximum amount considered necessary by the NUM's independent geologist. That is surely not too high a premium to pay for access to a huge mountain of black gold.
In the all-too-brief time at my disposal I have attempted to convey to the House some idea of the difficult problems confronting some 4,500 miners without, I hope, minimising those besetting the NCB. I urge upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the importance of entering into early discussions with the NCB with the clearly expressed purpose of ensuring a secure future for the existing labour force.

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) for raising this matter on the adjournment. In case I do not have time to reply in detail to all his points, I assure him that I shall write to him about some of his detailed suggestions.
As he will know, I always welcome debates on the coal industry. I may not approach them in quite the same freedom as I did when I occupied a similar place on the Benches as my hon. Friend, but I still enjoy them and I endeavour from my position in the Department of Energy to make a constructive contribution.
My hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that in replying to a debate about a particular coalfield and particular pits I must bear in mind the broad distinction between the responsibilities of the National Coal Board and those of the Government. The Government's role is to approve the strategy for the industry and, having approved the strategy, to help facilitate it by means of legislation, the

lending of money for investment and the assumption of financial responsibility for burdens of the past that the industry cannot itself properly carry. Within that strategy it is the Coal Board's responsibility to take decisions on the development of particular coal reserves, though the Government must take a close interest in major decisions which involve very sizable investment or which have important implications for employment in certain areas.
I think that it is quite clear that this Government's commitment to the industry is a firm one. We have endorsed the general strategy of Plan for Coal and have honoured, with legislation both enacted and in hand, the undertakings that we made in the coal industry examination. The 1975 Coal Industry Act and the present National Coal Board (Finance) Bill will both help to secure the industry's future. Within the broad strategy that has been agreed, it is the duty of the Board to decide how best to achieve its targets and to manage the industry. Not only would it blur responsibilities for Government to intervene in particular management decisions, but in order for the Government to do so it would have to duplicate the Board's own expertise. Previous Administrations of both parties have adhered to this policy, and I am sure this is right.
Within the industry, the colliery review procedure ensures that the unions are brought into full consultation at all levels, and it is important that this procedure is properly and fully used. If direct discussion with pit or area representatives does not produce a satisfactory result, an appeal can be lodged with Board headquarters. I think it is true to say that the Board gives the unions access to all the information they need to assess the position and the unions, of course, have their own mining engineers to advise them. This procedure does not involve Government at any stage.
I would stress that when it becomes known that reserves at any colliery are nearing exhaustion, there is normally sufficient warning of this for full consultation with the unions and agreement to be reached on an orderly rundown. The House will agree that the Board has a successful record of redeploying men and minimising the social effects of such closures.
In the light of the comments I have already made, I should now like to turn to the industry in the Durham coastal area. The particular collieries affected by decisions on and possibilities of the development of new reserves are Seaham, Vane Tempest and Dawdon, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The position is a complex one. Reserves of coal exist under the seabed, and it was originally thought that these could be reached about three miles off-shore from Vane Tempest, which could in any case continue on its present reserves for some time. Drivages were begun from Vane Tempest, but borings disclosed a serious geological disturbance which meant that the amount of coal thought to be present was considerably reduced.
Following this, a local meeting was held on 15th October 1975 at which the Board said that, as a result of the new evidence disclosed by the borings, there seemed no alternative to stopping the two drivages. Further exploration is being made to discover whether it will be possible to exploit undersea reserves from Dawdon, but this is a matter still undergoing investigation on which I am afraid I can supply no more detailed information.
However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board is using every means to make sure that any reserves which can safely and economically be worked are not left unexploited for lack of investigation—not only in this area but in in the country as a whole.
Seaham Colliery is at present producing all its coal from one face and working conditions are difficult. It is gratifying to see, however, that present results are good and that the colliery has recently reversed its loss-making trend. Productivity this year has shown a marked improvement over last year.
With regard to both Seaham and Vane Tempest there is another inland seam, Seam C, which could affect the future of either colliery. This is still under investigation and a decision has yet to be reached. It would be technically impossible and quite improper for me to attempt to prejudice the decision, or to forecast how it might affect either of the two collieries.
It is important that the admitted problems facing these Durham pits and

the efforts that are being made to solve them should be put into perspective against the prospects for the North-East area as a whole. My hon. Friend need have no fears that a rundown will take place in the Board's North-East area or specifically in the Durham coastal area. To illustrate the Board's intention of fully exploiting all workable reserves, I should like to refer to some of the capital projects approved by the Board during 1975. These include rapid-loading facilities at Easington and Horden/Blackhall collieries for the disposal of coking coal at an estimated capital cost of some £2·4 million. Also, further north at Wear-mouth and Westoe major drift drivages have been approved at an estimated capital cost of £2·7 million. As I have said many times before, this Government have put their money where their mouth is in relation to mining. These projects are in addition to the major expenditure previously approved on merger of Hordern/Blackhall and on reconstruction of Easington, together totalling over £20 million. The saleable output of the north-east area was 16·2 million tons in 1974–75, compared with 15·3 million tons in 1973–74. In the nine months to December 1975, disposals reached 11·9 million tons, 6 million to the electricity market and 3·3 million to the coking coal market.
The Board's view is that, provided coal's competitive position can be maintained, there is likely to be a ready market for all production from the North-East coalfield. The investment already undertaken and that to be undertaken at colleries is evidence of the importance the Board attaches to the area's contribution to its overall plan of maintaining productive capacity wherever possible.
Manpower at the coastal pits of Durham has been maintained at about the same level since 1972—around 14,000 to 15,000—which is an achievement. Future manpower requirements at these collieries will depend on decisions on further exploration of reserves. Any proposed changes in plans for collieries will of course be discussed between the Board and the unions under the colliery review procedure.
I have tried to deal with the question raised by my hon. Friend and to describe the prospects for the North-East area and for the Durham coastal pits in particular.


There is no doubt that this continues to be an important part of the coal industry of Great Britain. I should like to thank my hon. Friend once more for the opportunity to debate a subject of such strong mutual interest and one which will not

have been without some interest to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.